Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Dagenham Urban District Council Bill [Lords],

King's Consent signified; Bill read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Public Works Facilities Scheme (Great Western Railway) (No. 2) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

GATESHEAD-ON-TYNE.

Major HERBERT EVANS: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether any schemes are under consideration by the Unemployment Grants Committee for the purpose of providing work for the unemployed of Gateshead-on-Tyne?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Miss Bondfield): The Unemployment Grants Committee have at present under consideration three schemes of a total cost of £3,149 submitted by the Gateshead Town Council.

FOREIGN COUNTRIES (STATISTICS).

Mr. MARCUS: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour the approximate volume of unemployment, at the latest available date, in France, Germany, the United States, Italy, Austria, Hungary and Russia?

Miss BONDFIELD: As the reply is somewhat long, I will circulate it, if I may, in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

As regards France, Germany and the United States of America, I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 8th July to the hon. Member for Chester-
field (Mr. Benson). As regards Germany, it has since been officially reported that at 30th June the number of persons registered by public employment exchanges as unemployed was approximately 3,962,000. In Italy, 670,353 persons were recorded by the National Social Insurance Fund as wholly unemployed and 28,780 as partially unemployed at the end of April. In Austria, there were 286,932 persons on the registers of the employment exchanges at the end of April. For Hungary, the only available information relates to the proportions unemployed among certain trade unions with about 145,000 members: of these members, 28,171, or 19.4 per cent. were reported in April to be unemployed. There are no statistics of unemployment in Russia.

DUNDEE.

Mr. MARCUS: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were found employment by the officers of the Dundee Employment Exchange during the 12 months ended 31st December. 1929, and the 12 months ended 31st December, 1930?

Miss BONDFIELD: During the 12 months ended 30th December, 1929, 6,110 vacancies were filled by the Dundee Employment Exchange. The corresponding figure for the 12 months ended 29th December, 1930, was 6,924.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES, SCOTLAND.

Mr. MARCUS: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour when the last survey of Employment Exchanges was carried out in Scotland; how many Exchanges were found to be unsatisfactory and on what grounds; and what work it is proposed to carry through, and at what cost, to remedy the defects?

Miss BONDFIELD: The last comprehensive survey of Employment Exchange premises was made in 1929. Twenty-six Exchanges in Scotland were then thought to require attention as soon as might be practicable, mainly on account of the inadequacy of the accommodation; 12 others were also thought to be unsatisfactory though in a less degree. Work is proceeding in 11 cases, at an estimated cost shown in the Estimates, Class VII, with the exception of the proposed extension to the Dundee Employment Exchange, where a more economical
scheme has been adopted for the time being at a cost of £1,360 instead of the permanent extension proposed at a cost of £15,850. I regret that within the limits of the available expenditure it is not possible to proceed more rapidly with the rehousing programme.

GRANTS (MUNICIPAL OFFICES, SOUTHWARK).

Mr. ISAACS: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of money that has been promised through her Department towards the cost of building a new town hall in the Metropolitan Borough of Southwark, also the date upon which the application and plans were received, the date upon which the borough council was notified that a grant would be made, and the total cost of the scheme?

Miss BONDFIELD: No application in respect of the construction of municipal offices has been received by the Unemployment Grants Committee from Southwark Borough Council.

Mr. ISAACS: Is it untrue that a promise has been made that a certain sum of money would be granted?

Miss BONDFIELD: Quite untrue.

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. DAVID HARDIE: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour if she is aware that Employment Exchange managers at present find work for unemployed men who are in receipt of disability pensions, in addition to drawing unemployment benefit, to the exclusion of the pensionless unemployed man whose only income is the amount of his unemployment benefit; and if she will issue instructions for this practice to cease and preference to be given in all cases to unemployed men who have no other income?

Miss BONDFIELD: It has been the policy of successive Governments ever since an early period of the War to make special efforts to find employment for disabled ex-Service men, particularly those suffering from severe disabilities who are nevertheless capable of undertaking some employment. I am not prepared to depart from this policy.

Mr. HARDIE: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in many cases these men have suffered a reduction of income from 6s. to 10s. a week?

Miss BONDFIELD: I should require notice of that question.

Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour the estimated number of disabled ex-service men and the number who are in employment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions, that the number of disabled ex-service men at present in receipt of Great War pensions in Great Britain is approximately 400,000. The number known to be disabled ex-service men who were registered as unemployed on 1st June, 1931, was 41,420. It is not possible to give a figure for those in employment.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: 11.
(for Sir BASIL PETO)asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that men who served throughout the War, and have since the War been in the employment of the Imperial War Graves Commission, are refused unemployment benefit when returning to this country if unable to find employment; and whether she proposes to take any steps to remedy this?

Miss BONDFIELD: I understand from the hon. Member that he has a particular case in mind. I am making inquiries regarding it, and will let him know the result.

COAL INDUSTRY.

Major COLVILLE: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of workers in the coal-mining industry registered as unemployed on 1st June, 1929, and at the latest available date?

Miss BONDFIELD: At 27th May, 1929, there were 199,163 insured persons in the coal-mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain. The corresponding figure at 22nd June, 1931, was 378,633.

Major COLVILLE: In view of the very grave increase in the unemployment figures in the coal-mining industry since the present Government took office, will the right hon. Lady assure us that she will use her influence to see that the miners of Scotland are not stopped working at the present time?

ROYAL COMMISSION (REPORT).

Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: 46.
asked the Prime Minister when the final report of the Royal Commission on Unemployment Insurance will be available?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): My information is that the Commission hope to be able to report by the end of the year, but the hon. and gallant Member will understand that I can give no guarantee on the subject.

Sir A. POWNALL: Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to the Royal Commission as to the great importance of expediting their work, as he did in regard to their interim report?

The PRIME MINISTER: That has been done.

MAESTEG.

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 53.
asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that more than 60 per cent. of the miners of Maesteg and district are unemployed; and whether he is prepared to designate the district as one in which 100 per cent. grant should apply to public utility schemes promoted by the local authority?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The allocation of grants on the 100 per cent. basis has been completed, and further money is not available.

INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS (REFUND).

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER: 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether she is aware that Mr. W. Myers and Mr. F. W. Parker, employed as stokers at Spitalgate Aerodrome, Grantham, were dismissed from work in May last; that they were informed that owing to their employment having been ruled as non-insurable their unemployment insurance contributions for the past four years would be refunded to them; that as yet no refund has been made to them; and whether she will take steps to expedite this payment?

Miss BONDFIELD: I was not aware that these stokers had been dismissed. An application for the refund of contributions paid in respect of their uninsurable employment was received at the end of May. Claims of this kind necessarily take some time to settle, but I understand that payment will be made in the two cases in question during the next few clays.

Oral Answers to Questions — ALIENS (MUSICIANS).

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour what was the cause of the rise from 18 in 1928 to 127 in 1929 of the number of foreign musicians who were given permits to enter this country?

Miss BONDFIELD: These numbers fluctuate considerably from year to year. I can give no explanation of the increase in 1929 apart from the fact that a greater number of applications for permits were made than in 1928. In 1930 the corresponding figure was 105.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does the right hon. Lady propose to continue encouraging the issue of permits for foreign labour, and will she carry it to other trades as well?

Miss BONDFIELD: I purpose to continue discouraging it.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that in some cases in which these permits are granted it is not possible to organise English performers at all?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is the main consideration in issuing permits.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether it is not a fact that all these permits are granted only to specialists, and not to ordinary musicians?

Miss BONDFIELD: That is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — PROFESSIONAL WORKERS (SALARIES).

Mr. W. J. BROWN: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour what percentage increase above pre-War levels is represented by the present salary levels of professional classes as distinct from manual workers?

Miss BONDFIELD: The Ministry of Labour is not in possession of statistics showing the percentage increase, above pre-War levels, in the salaries of professional workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH INDUSTRY (NON-INFLAMMABLE FILMS.)

Mr. DAY: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his Department has yet arrived at a definition of non-inflammable films; and will he give particulars?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Clynes): The provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1909, apply only to the use of inflammable films. There is no definition of inflammable in the Act, but I would refer my hon. Friend to the case of Victoria Pier (Folkestone) Syndicate Limited versus Reeve, which was decided in 1912, and which gives an indication of the view which the Courts take as to the meaning of the word.

Mr. DAY: Is it not a fact that many local authorities, including the London County Council, have not been able to define what a "non-flam" film is, until they have a ruling from the Home Office, and in view of the fact that many places are showing "non-flam" films—

Mr. FOOT: What does "non-flam" mean?

Mr. DAY: Non-inflammable films. In view of the fact that many places are showing "non-flam" films, does not my right hon. Friend think that some definition should be given?

Mr. CLYNES: This matter is highly technical, and I have done my best to refer my hon. Friend to the real source of definitions. It is not for the Home Office to define; it is for the courts.

Oral Answers to Questions — FACTORY INSPECTOR'S REPORT.

Major H. EVANS: 16.
asked the Home Secretary whether he will inform the House of the cause of the delay in issuing the annual report of the Chief Inspector of Factories for 1930?

Mr. CLYNES: The preparation of this report has, I regret to say, been somewhat delayed through illness of the chief inspector. It has now, however, been completed, and I hope to present it to Parliament before the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (CORRESPONDENCE).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 17.
asked the Home Secretary the number of letters that convicted persons serving sentences exceeding six months' imprisonment are allowed to send to, and receive from, friends; and whether he can see his way to allow the number to be increased?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of letters allowed varies according to the division or class in which a prisoner is and to the stage which he has attained under the progressive stage system. I am sending the hon. Member a summary of the regulations on the subject. The question of allowing more frequent communications has been considered, and certain modifications of the regulations have been made recently with this object.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOP ASSISTANTS (HOURS).

Mr. HOFFMAN: 18.
asked the Home Secretary if he can make any further statement as to the policy of His Majesty's Government in relation to the hours of labour of shop assistants?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only remind my hon. Friend that this question is being considered by a Select Committee of this House, whose report is expected very shortly. Any statement of policy must await the consideration of this report.

Mr. HOFFMAN: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent action of Selfridge's, for instance, in the West End of London, is throwing us back to a period of over 30 years ago, that a large number of other houses are following in the trail of this firm, and that shop assistants' hours in the West End are being increased?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot make this particular instance relate to the report.

Captain CAZALET: Is it not a fact that Selfridge's in every other respect treat their employés better than any other firm in the country?

Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Is it not a fact that this change of policy at Selfridge's is at the instance or with the support of the assistants themselves?

Mr. MARCH: They went and asked for it, of course.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON LICENSING (REPORT).

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: 19.
asked the Home Secretary when the report of the Royal Commission on Licensing will be available?

Mr. CLYNES: I can only say that I am informed that this report will not be available before the Recess.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this report be available before the Disarmament Conference, in view of the personnel of the chairman, the Minister for Air?

Mr. CLYNES: I cannot say when the Disarmament Conference may conclude its labours—[HON. MEMBERS: "Begin!"]—and I must have notice of that question.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: But what is to happen if the report is still in preparation and the Disarmament Conference meets?

Oral Answers to Questions — RONALD TRUE.

Mr. DAY: 20.
asked the Home Secretary whether Ronald True, the ex-airman who was sentenced to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure for the murder of Gertrude Yates in 1922, is still detained at Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum; and whether this prisoner is subject to the ordinary rules and conditions as regards purchase of food and receiving visitors?

Mr. CLYNES: True was certified insane while under sentence of death and was removed to Broadmoor. The answer to both parts of the question is in the affirmative.

Mr. DAY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any inquiries at present are going on there with regard to True's conduct in Broadmoor?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not have answered the two closing parts of the question without inquiries having been made. They have been made.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (PROPAGANDA).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 21.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the fact that the pledge against propaganda is differently interpreted by the Soviet and His' Majesty's Government, he will consider the imposition of specific conditions against anti-British propaganda upon employés of the Soviet Government visiting this country?

Mr. CLYNES: No, Sir. The time condition which is imposed in all such cases affords a sufficient means of dealing with this matter, and in my view there would be no advantage in attaching a further condition of the nature suggested.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the cases of foreign subjects who have deliberately declared themselves hostile to the Government of this country, and then subsequently come here? Will he not impose special conditions? And has his attention been called to the journalistic activities of Mr. Bukharin in the last few days?

Mr. CLYNES: There are three or four points of view presented in that question, and I can only say that all relevant circumstances are taken into account in dealing with individual cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — CONVICTION AND SENTENCE, CAMBORNE.

Mr. FREEMAN: 22.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the case of George Austin, of Camborne, Cornwall, aged 80, who has already served 35 years in gaol and has been recently sentenced to a further six months' hard labour; and whether he will review the sentence and consider some other treatment of this case?

Mr. CLYNES: This case had not previously come to my notice. I find that according to the records this man, who is now about 80 years of age, has been convicted on over 40 occasions, and in a large number of different names, from 1883 onwards, the offences being mostly larceny or attempted larceny. I am having some further inquiries made; and if in the meantime the hon. Member has any suggestion to offer, I should be glad if he would communicate with me.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can my right hon. Friend say whether on this occasion this offence was only an attempt and that there was no actual crime, and will he find some home in which this man can spend the last few years of his life?

Mr. CLYNES: I could not go into the merits of that part of the question without notice. I can only say that in these instances many things are done to offer homes and opportunities for rest.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman recall to mind the case of the Dartmoor shepherd?

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAD PAINT ACT.

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 25.
asked the Home Secretary the number of cases of lead poisoning notified during 1930 under the regulations of the Lead Paint Act and the number of cases which terminated fatally?

Mr. CLYNES: The number of cases notified during 1930 was 66. Thirteen of these cases terminated fatally.

Mr. WHITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that these regulations are working satisfactorily?

Mr. CLYNES: I have no reason to doubt that on the whole they are, but I shall be glad to receive information of particular instances where they are not.

Oral Answers to Questions — POLICE (APPOINTMENT AND ADMINISTRATION, HEREFORD).

Mr. ERNEST WINTERTON: 26.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Mr. Freeman Newton, the present Chief Constable of Hereford, was appointed to that position in 1928 after having failed to obtain a medical certificate of fitness both from the Hereford police surgeon and from another Hereford surgeon; and for what reasons the appointment was sanctioned in such circumstances?

Mr. CLYNES: Doubt at first arose with regard to a purely local affection from which the Chief Constable was found to be suffering, but, after examination by an independent medical authority, he was given a certificate of fitness by the medical officer of the Force and the appointment was accordingly confirmed.

Dr. MORGAN: Is it the policy of the Home Office in confirming such appointments to allow a medical specialist admitted by the claimant himself to override all previous medical certificates?

Mr. CLYNES: This case relates to 1928, and I can only say that the policy of the Home Office is to be satisfied that a medical certificate rests upon proper medical authority, and in this instance it appears to do so.

Mr. WINTERTON: Is it competent for an applicant of this nature to get a certificate from a friend who is a private doctor when that friend is interested in his appointment? [Interruption.]

Mr. SPEAKER: This is a very old case.

Mr. MATTERS: Is the gentleman mentioned also Chief Constable of the Hereford County Police?

Mr. SPEAKER: That has nothing to do with this question at all.

Dr. MORGAN: 27.
asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered the petition sent to him a month ago, bearing the signatures of over 4,000 citizens and electors of Hereford, praying for a public inquiry into the police administration of that city; whether the petition has yet been acknowledged; whether he has made any investigations; and whether, before coming to a decision in relation thereto, he will receive a deputation from Hereford?

Mr. CLYNES: I have received a petition which was presented personally at the Home Office by a deputation from the Hereford Trades and Labour Council. The receipt of the petition has been acknowledged. I have the matter to which the petition relates under my careful consideration. I should, of course, be prepared to consider any representations from any persons who have material information to give, but such representations should be submitted in writing in the first instance and I do not consider that any useful purpose would be served by my receiving a further deputation at the present time.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

NON-PROVIDED SCHOOLS.

Sir K. WOOD: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Education the present position arising from the conversations that have taken place in relation to the question of special grants to non-provided schools?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): Conversations are continuing on this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any further statement.

Sir K. WOOD: Will the hon. Gentleman be able to make a statement before the Recess?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I do not think so.

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Mr. FREEMAN: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the case of Doreen Fowler, aged 11, of Pengam, South Wales, who was given corporal punishment recently by her teacher, who was summoned for assault and the case dismissed although he admitted having struck the child with a cane for hanging about after school hours; and whether he will consider the desirability of prohibiting the administration of corporal punishment by men teachers on young girls?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have this morning seen a short newspaper account of the case referred to by my hon. Friend. The administration of corporal punishment in the schools is a matter which has always been left to the discretion of the school authorities, and I am not satisfied that there is any occasion for me to intervene.

NECESSITOUS CHILDREN (BOOTS).

Mr. EDWARD WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he is prepared to grant power to the local education authority with regard to the provision of boots, etc., for necessitous school children?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Local authorities have the power when destitution exists to provide relief in kind, which might include the provision of boots, through their public assistance committees. I have no statutory authority to grant this power to local education authorities.

SPECIAL SCHOOLS.

Mrs. MANNING: 32.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many local authorities were refused permission to build special schools for mentally-defective children in each of the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: In the years in question the numbers of local authorities who approached the Board regarding the provision of special schools for men-
tally defective children and were advised not to proceed, were as follow:


In 1926
…
…
…
…
1


In 1927
…
…
…
…
8


In 1928
…
…
…
…
2


In 1929
…
…
…
…
1


Since the end of January, 1929, the Board have approved any proposals submitted.

Mrs. MANNING: Were these refusals made out of a sense of sympathy with the local education authorities; I think that that was the answer which the hon. Gentleman gave me last week?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: The refusals to which I am referring were made under a previous Administration, and I understand that the reason was that the report on mental deficiency was being prepared.

SCOTLAND (INSTRUCTION IN TEMPERANCE).

Major McKENZIE WOOD: 83.
(for Mr. DUNCAN MILLAR) asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, if he can state the instructions issued by the Department for Education to the education committees in Scotland as to the teaching of temperance in the public schools in Scotland and the number of lessons on this subject included each year in the school curriculum?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): Copies of the syllabus entitled "The Hygiene of Food and Drink," issued by the Board of Education, were sent by the Department to education authorities in Scotland on 20th September, 1920, together with a circular (No. 29) in which it was stated that it was desirable that the instruction in temperance in Scottish schools should be based on the information contained in the syllabus. I am sending the hon. Member copies of these papers. Opportunity for such instruction in temperance as the education authorities may think desirable is afforded under the subject of "Morals and Citizenship," which is part of the prescribed work of the older scholars. I am aware that a number of education authorities make contributions under Section 9 (4) of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1918, to temperance organisations in recognition of the work of their lecturers in the schools. The information asked for in the last part of the question is not available in the Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

GATESHEAD.

Major H. EVANS: 34.
asked the Minister of Health whether any statement showing the number of men, women and children living in houses scheduled as being insanitary within the county borough of Gateshead has been furnished by that local authority; and, if so, whether he will communicate these details to the House?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): No such statement has been furnished to me, but I may say that the council have decided to clear, under the Housing Act, 1930, areas containing 2,983 persons.

MICKLEOVER, DERBYSHIRE.

Mr. LEES: 42.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been built by the Repton Rural District Council in the parish of Mickleover, Derbyshire, during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No houses were built in this parish in the years mentioned.

Mr. LEES: 43.
asked the Minister of Health how many houses have been declared unfit for human habitation in the parish of Mickleover, Derbyshire; and if the Repton Rural District Council are arranging to build any houses to replace them?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I understand that one demolition Order has been made. The council propose to erect 12 houses in the parish.

Mr. LEES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is overcrowding in unfit houses in that area, and would it not be well to send an inspector down to inspect the houses?

Mr. GREENWOOD: If my hon. Friend will give me particulars, I will consider them.

RURAL AREAS, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE.

Mr. PERRY: 48.
asked the Minister of Health the agricultural parishes in the county of Northampton which will be eligible for the additional financial grants under the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The special assistance proposed to be given under the Bill will be given to rural district councils, and most of the district councils in this county are apparently eligible for assistance for houses in their agricultural parishes.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

NATIONAL MATERNITY SERVICE (ESTIMATED COST).

Mr. FREEMAN: 40.
asked the Minister of Health whether he has now been able to collect the data for framing an approximate estimate of the cost of providing a national maternity service, covering the services of doctor, midwife and anaesthetic administration?

Mr. GREENWOOD: No, Sir. I regret to say that these data are not yet available.

Mr. FREEMAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any indication when they are likely to be available?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am afraid that I cannot.

TUBERCULOSIS (TREATMENT).

Mr. SMITHERS: 51.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to a treatment for tuberculosis called umckaloabo; and whether his Department has examined it, and with what results?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative and to the second part in the negative. I am advised that the claims made in regard to this alleged form of treatment for tuberculosis do not appear to differ in character or degree from those made for many other so-called "remedies" which have been advertised from time to time and afterwards found to be valueless. I do not consider that there is sufficient ground for instituting a clinical investigation into its value.

Mr. SMITHERS: In view of the extraordinary success that is claimed for this treatment, will not the right hon. Gentleman at least ask his medical officer to look into it and report on it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Information in my Department goes to show that the claim made cannot be sustained.

Mr. SKELTON: In view of the extraordinary shape of the word, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to pronounce it?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I think that the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) had better do that; it is his question.

SURGICAL INSTRUMENTS AND APPLIANCES (PURCHASES).

Mr. HANNON: 33.
asked the Minister of Health if he can give particulars of the expenditure incurred by his Department and by local authorities, respectively, on surgical instruments and appliances during the last financial year, or the latest year for which such information is available; how much of this expenditure is in respect of purchases of foreign instruments; and whether he is prepared to give instructions that British-made instruments are to be purchased whenever they can be obtained in this country at a competitive price and of a comparable quality?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The expenditure on surgical instruments and appliances by my Department for the last financial year amounted to £337 2s. 4d., of which £62 8s. 6d. was in respect of the purchase of foreign instruments. It is the policy of the Department to purchase British-made instruments whenever they can be obtained in this country at a competitive price and of a comparable quality. I have no information as to the expenditure incurred by local authorities for this purpose, but I have already by circular requested local authorities to make use to the utmost extent practicable of goods and materials of home production.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the British-made instruments of this character are not just as good as any instruments made in any other part of the world?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I cannot say that without knowledge of the particular instrument that the hon. Member has in mind.

SANITATION, CITY OF LONDON.

Mr. MORT: 50.
asked the Minister of Health whether the recent by-law with regard to sanitation passed by the London County Council and approved by
the Ministry of Health, and which is in force in the area of the London County Council and the Metropolitan borough councils, is yet in force in the City of London?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I am not sure to what by-law my hon. Friend refers. If it is to the by-laws with respect to water closets made by the London County Council last year, these do not apply to the City of London, but I have urged the City Corporation to allow the same facilities and they have promised to consider the suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMY COMMITTEE.

Sir K. WOOD: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can now state if the report of the Economy Committee will be available to Members of the House before the summer Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have good reason to hope so, but I cannot give an absolute assurance.

Sir K. WOOD: I take it that, if this report cannot be issued before the Recess, it will be made available to Members directly the right hon. Gentleman receives it?

The PRIME MINISTER: Certainly.

Mr. WISE: May we assume that action will not be taken on the report before the House has had an opportunity of considering it?

The PRIME MINISTER: I would like to have an opportunity of considering it first myself.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMAMENTS.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 47.
asked the Prime Minister whether the proposal has been considered for a year's cessation of all warship building and construction of artillery and other weapons and war-like equipment by international agreement, concurrently with the remission of inter-allied debt and reparation payments; and whether any decision has been come to on behalf of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: No such proposal has been made to His Majesty's Government.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Have the Government considered initiating these proposals?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, we have not.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will this matter be considered at the forthcoming meeting of Ministers in view of its immense importance, and would not this solve one of the difficulties between France and Germany?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the latter part of the supplementary question, I am afraid that it would not, but every consideration will be given to proposals of this and a similar character that may be made to us.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: On a point of Order. I raise it at this stage, because it relates to a question which I put down to the Prime Minister four or five days ago in regard to the Douglas Pennant case.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member had better raise it after Questions.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC SITUATION, EUROPE.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is able to make any further statement with regard to the European financial situation?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Philip Snowden): My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will, I understand, be making a statement at the end of Questions, and perhaps the hon. Member will await that statement.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman at any rate assure the House that His Majesty's Government will be no party to imposing political conditions on Germany?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. SPEAKER: This subject is to be dealt with at the end of Questions.

Mr. STANLEY BALDWIN: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister
whether he can make any statement with regard to the proposed conference to take place on Monday.

The PRIME MINISTER: Since this morning's communiqué was issued, further consultations have taken place. Pursuant to these, we have been informed that the German Chancellor has now decided to proceed to Paris. The visit that I had intended to pay to Berlin with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has in consequence been postponed. The conference of Ministers will take place in London on Monday as already announced.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: May we have an assurance that the British Government will be no party to the imposition of political conditions, thus exploiting the financial crisis?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall take note of the question.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: This is not the time to debate this question.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOBACCO SALES (COUPON SYSTEM).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 57.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the practice by tobacconists of distribution of so-called free gifts in exchange for coupons issued to purchasers of tobacco; and whether, in the case of the free gifts of silver and gold and plated goods, there have been any applications for licences by retail dealers in tobacco under Sections 1 and 3 of the Revenue Act, 1867?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part of the question, some tobacco retailers have taken out plate licences, but normally, under the coupon system, any liability for plate dealers' licence would rest, not with the tobacco retailers, but with the tobacco manufacturers, and so far as I am aware all manufacturers who are liable have taken out licences.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

LAND VALUE DUTY (STAFF.)

Sir A. POWNALL: 58.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what arrangements are being made to house the extra staff required for the land taxes; and how many of such staff will be employed in the London area?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: Additional office accommodation is being hired, where necessary. The number of additional officers to be employed in the London area may be ultimately between 200 and 300.

BONUS (EX-SERVICE MEN).

Sir JOHN FERGUSON: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he will reconsider his decision and receive a deputation from the Association of Ex-service Civil Servants to discuss the question of the cost-of-living bonus that applies to post-War ex-service entrants to the Civil Service, especially in view of the fact that no representative of the staff side of the National Whitley Council represents the post-War ex-service point of view?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the request made by this association to ray right hon. Friend. He is not prepared to alter his decision.

Sir J. FERGUSON: As this association comprises such a very large number of post-War entrants, they would feel greatly indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he would see them. It is an important matter so far as they are concerned.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Is it not the case that the organisation referred to represents less than 8 per cent. of the total number of ex-service men in the Civil Service, and a small minority of even the post-War entrants?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: Why should not a minority receive representation?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT (RAILWAY VOUCHERS.)

Sir A. POWNALL: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
whether he has now reached a conclusion with regard to the arrangements for providing travelling facilities for Members?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: I have carefully examined various alternatives in consultation with the railway authorities. The proposal which commends itself to me is to retain in a slightly modified form the present system but to accept the suggestion of the railway companies that their booking clerks and agents should stamp the letters M.P. on Railway tickets suppled to Members in exchange for vouchers and also to make certain minor amendments to the vouchers themselves. I trust that these proposals will meet with the approval of Members. With the Speaker's permission I am putting a copy of the suggested new form of voucher in the tea room, and I do not propose to make the alteration until after the Adjournment at the end of this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIVER POLLUTION.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 62.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the resolution adopted and sent to him by the National Federation of Anglers at the annual conference at Doncaster recently, representing some 120,000 anglers, mostly working men, on the subject of river pollution, and making certain recommendations and suggestions for the future control and prevention of this evil; and whether he is taking any special action in the matter?

Mr. CHARLES EDWARDS (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has read the very comprehensive series of resolutions of the National Federation of Anglers, and he wishes me to assure my hon. and gallant Friend of his complete sympathy with the interests represented by the Federation. I understand that the Joint Advisory Committee on River Pollution will shortly produce its third report, which no doubt will deal with most of the points referred to in the resolutions. As soon as the report is issued my right hon. Friend proposes to confer with the Minister of Health as to the action to be taken in the light of its recommendations.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

NATIONAL MARK EGGS.

Miss PICTON - TURBERVILL: 64.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there was an increase in the sale of National Mark eggs in 1930 as compared with 1929; and, if so, in what parts of the country the increase mainly occurred?

Mr. C. EDWARDS: The Ministry has not the figures showing the output of National Mark eggs for the whole of the year 1929, but figures for the period August to December, 1929 and 1930 respectively, show that there was an increase of 16½ millions in the output of National Mark eggs in the latter period, being 42 per cent. greater than in the corresponding period of 1929. The increase of the output of National Mark eggs was most marked in the Eastern Counties (Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex) and in Cornwall, Dorset, Wilts, Sussex, Lancashire, and West Shropshire.

Miss PICTON-TURBERVILL: Can the hon. Member tell me whether there has been any increase in Shropshire?

Mr. EDWARDS: I am afraid I could not.

WHEAT QUOTA.

Mr. LEES: 66.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has considered the resolutions passed and sent to him by the National Agricultural Labourers' and Rural Workers' Union, the National Farmers' Union, and the Workers' Union, asking for a statement of the Government's policy on the wheat quota; and whether he can state his reply to these organisations?

Mr. C. EDWARDS: My right hon. Friend has received copies of resolutions passed by various branches of the unions concerned with agricultural workers, urging the Government to adopt the principle of a wheat quota. These resolutions have been acknowledged, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any announcement on the subject at present.

Major HARVEY: Has the Minister of Agriculture already made a statement to a meeting of the Liberal party in this House?

Mr. EDWARDS: It is obvious that I could not reply to that question.

SUGAR-BEET.

Mr. QUIBELL: 67.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the House any information as to the sugar-beet acreage contracted by those factories which have not taken advantage of the special advance recently offered by the Government?

Mr. C. EDWARDS: The factories which have not accepted the special advance have contracted for 80,000 acres representing a decline of 44 per cent. from the acreage contracted for by them in the 1930 growing season. As a measure of the value of the Government's offer, I would add that 152,000 acres have been contracted for by the other factories, representing, in their case, a decline of only 18 per cent. from last year's figures.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (ARABS).

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: 69.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to recent cases of the paying off of white crews from ships trading from home ports and the signing on of crews of Arabs in their place; and whether he will consider the introduction of legislation to remedy this state of affairs?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. William Graham): My attention has been called to cases of the kind referred to in the question. The matter will continue to be carefully watched, but as at present advised I am not prepared to propose fresh legislation.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Can my right hon. Friend deal with the case of ships from Hull to the Plate paying off their white crews and engaging Arabs? Can nothing be done about this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Free Trade!"] No, it is not Free Trade.

Mr. GRAHAM: I have explained to my hon. and gallant Friend that I have done everything in my power in these cases, but we have no legislation; and there is the further fact that many of the men are British subjects.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position is becoming worse, because whereas formerly these Arabs were employed mostly on Eastern runs, they are now coming more and more to the home ports?

Mr. GRAHAM: I can only undertake to look into the last point.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Do not the Government always prefer to give employment to foreigners?

Mr. GRAHAM: I cannot allow the statement in that supplementary question to pass. A lot of these men are British subjects.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Are the owners of these ships British?

Oral Answers to Questions — COMPANIES ACT.

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 70.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make it known that, for the better protection of the public and pending the amendment of the Companies Act, 1929, it is desirable that public companies should, in their published accounts, disclose individual profits and/or losses in each separate subsidiary concern in which they have a controlling interest, and that no dividend declared by or receivable from a subsidiary concern should be included in the published accounts of a holding company until the dividend has been received by the holding company?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The provisions relating to the accounts of companies which have subsidiaries are contained in Sections 125 and 126 of the Companies Act and might be reviewed in connection with any amending legislation, but it would not be proper for me to anticipate the decision of Parliament by urging companies to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EXPORT CREDITS SCHEME.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 71.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any defaults have yet occurred in any payments under the Exports Credits Scheme; and, if so, in what countries?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I presume my hon. Friend refers to defaults in payment by acceptors of bills guaranteed under the Export Credits Scheme. The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I regret that it is undesirable to state the names of the countries
concerned; some default has, however, occurred in most of the countries to which goods have been shipped under the scheme since its inception in July, 1926.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: I would like to ask the President of the Board of Trade if Russia has defaulted in any case?

Mr. GRAHAM: As I have previously stated in the House there has been no default so far as Russia is concerned.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Have there been any applications for Russia from Members of the Independent Labour party?

Sir WILLIAM LANE MITCHELL: Has any other country defaulted more than Russia? [Interruption.] No other country has defaulted more than Russia.

Mr. GRAHAM: These are the defaults of individual traders.

Mr. HOFFMAN: In view of the fact that there have been no defaults on the part of Russia, is that not a reason for the lowering of the insurance premiums?

ARGENTINA.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 72.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if there has been any increase in British exports in the Argentine since the holding of the British Industries Exhibition?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The domestic exports of a number of commodities registered as consigned from the United Kingdom to the Argentine Republic during the quarter ended the 30th June, 1931, showed an increase over the exports during the quarter ended the 31st March, 1931, and five items showed an increase in the June quarter of 1931 compared with the corresponding quarter of last year. The period which has elapsed since the exhibition was held is too short to enable any reliable conclusion to be drawn from the published trade figures.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Does the increase in exports to the Argentine do credit to the good that was done by that wonderful traveller for the Empire, the Prince of Wales?

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 84.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if the British Industries Fair in the Argentine has resulted in a loss or a profit?

Mr. GILLETT (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Committee responsible for the organisation of the recent British Empire Trade Exhibition at Buenos Ayres have informed the Department of Overseas Trade that the final accounts will not be available for some weeks yet, but that no loss is anticipated on the running of the exhibition, and that, should a loss eventuate, it would be trifling.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the statement made in the Carnegie Foundation, an American publication, that there is an estimated loss of £6,000,000 on this exhibition, which was organised to save British capitalism from tottering to its grave?

AUSTRALIA (PREFERENCE).

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: 73.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the fact that the increased 10 per cent. rate in Australia on goods not covered by the first and second classifications will nullify the portion of preference given to Great Britain; and whether he will suggest to the Commonwealth Government the desirability of pari passu measures against competing foreign imports?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: The primage duty, which is a tax designed to raise additional revenue, is levied at a uniform rate on United Kingdom and foreign goods and does not therefore affect the actual amount of tariff preference granted to the United Kingdom. The question whether a differential rate should be imposed on foreign as against United Kingdom goods is one which must be left to the discretion of His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia.

Oral Answers to Questions — FORESTRY WORKERS.

Mr. LAWTHER: 74.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he is now in a position to state what annual holidays, with pay, the Commissioners have decided to give to their workmen on their various estates?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith): The present practice is that
forest workers are given the annual paid holidays provided for in the orders of the respective agricultural wages committees, subject to a minimum of two days.

Mr. LAWTHER: Will the Parliamentary Secretary ask the Commissioners to see that these men, who work extraordinarily long hours for very low wages, are given an annual holiday with pay?

Mr. W. J. BROWN: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the application from this particular class of workers for a concession which the Government made 18 months ago to industrial workers in the Admiralty and other Departments?

Mr. SMITH: I will bring that matter before my right hon. Friend.

Mr. LAWTHER: 75.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will state the hours now being worked weekly on the estates of the Commissioners at Hamsterley Grove, Durham, and Chopwell Woods, Durham; the number of men and boys employed; their weekly wages; and the times they commence and finish work in summer and winter months?

Mr. SMITH: At Hamsterley Grove the hours of work are now 50 per week. Twenty-five men are employed at 35s. per week and eight boys at from 15s. to 26s. In summer work starts at 7 o'clock and ends at 5. In winter it starts at 8 and ends at 4.30. On Saturdays work ends at noon. In Chopwell Woods the hours of work are now 50 per week. Six; men are employed at from 35s. to 38s. per week and 12 boys at from 14s. to 25s. In summer work starts at 7 and ends at 5. In winter it starts at 7.30 and ends at 4.30. On Saturdays work ends at noon.

Mr. LAWTHER: When the Parliamentary Secretary is considering the question of holidays is it possible for him also to consider the question of increasing the wages of these men and boys?

Mr. SMITH: The wages of these men were increased comparatively recently by raising the minimum rate from 30s. to 35s.

Major COLVILLE: Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that the conditions of these workers are equally as good as those in the Russian timber camps?

Mr. LAWTHER: 76.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he will give the number of holdings and cottages on the estates of the Commissioners at Hamsterley Grove, Durham, and Chopwell Woods, Durham?

Mr. SMITH: At Hamsterley Grove there are 13 holdings, two cottages and the forester's house. In Chopwell Woods there are four holdings, three cottages and the forester's house.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE CHARGES.

Mr. CULVERWELL: 78.
asked the Postmaster-General by what means telephone subscribers are protected against being overcharged on their local calls account, particularly in cases of ineffective calls, calls when wrong number is given or no reply obtained, calls to report instrument out of order, or calls to re-establish connection when exchange cuts off?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Viant): A call is not recorded for charge purposes until it becomes effective, i.e., until the called subscriber's telephone is answered. If a connection is established with a wrong number, or if a connection is severed prematurely, the subscriber should advise the operator of the occurrence in order that credit may be allowed. No charge is made for a local call to the exchange or to an official telephone to report an instrument out of order.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Can the hon. Member say whether a subscriber has any means of successfully contesting his telephone account, or whether he has any means of obtaining a refund of what he knows is an overcharge?

Mr. VIANT: If any complaint is made by a subscriber the Department have ways and means of checking the number recorded, but it must be appreciated that they are dependent upon the human factor all the time in recording the calls except in automatic exchanges.

Mr. CULVERWELL: Can the Asssistant Postmaster-General say
whether the Post Office ever makes a refund in the event of a subscriber complaining and proving that an overcharge has been made?

Mr. VIANT: Where it is proved that a mistake has been made refunds have been made.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: How is control exercised in the case of an automatic exchange, and how in such an exchange is a distinction made between an effective and a non-effective call?

Mr. VIANT: I am afraid that that is far too technical a matter to be dealt with by question an answer.

Mr. MARLEY: How does the user of an automatic slot machine get his money back if he finds he is on the wrong number?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: Is any charge made for complaining to the operator?

Mr. VIANT: If the hon. Member will read my reply he will appreciate that that is not done.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Does not the Post Office reserve to itself the sole right of judging?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY (CLOSED PITS, LANARKSHIRE).

Miss LEE: 79.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is aware that the Murdstoun pit, near Cleland, and other collieries in Lanarkshire belonging to Messrs. Archibald Russell, Limited, are being closed; and whether he can state if this is due to the operation of the quota system of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, or to the pits in question being worked out or incapable of being economically worked in future?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Shinwell): The Murdstoun pit was closed down on 22nd February, 1930, on account of water trouble, and three other pits belonging to the same company were closed in April and May, 1930, owing to want of trade. My hon. Friend will notice that all these pits were closed before the Coal Mines Act, 1930, was passed.

Miss LEE: Do I understand that this colliery, the closing down of which was the subject of comment in the Scottish
Press a few weeks ago, has been closed down all these months, and has there not been a re-opening of some of the Russell collieries?

Mr. SHINWELL: My information is that it was closed down. As regards the Murdstoun pit it was closed down in February, 1930, in consequence of water trouble. I understand that other pits belonging to this company have been closed at intervals, but this company has made a regular practice of closing down pits and re-opening them from time to time.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPARATIONS AND INTER-GOVERNMENTAL DEBTS.

Captain CAZALET: 82.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is the effect in relation to Canada of the acceptance by the United Kingdom and by Canada of President Hoover's proposals for the suspension of reparation payments and war debts?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The position of Canada in this matter differs from that of Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland in that there is no War Debt owing by His Majesty s Government in Canada to His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, so that the offer made to the Dominions by His Majesty's Government in the. United Kingdom has no application to Canada. On the other hand, the acceptance by His Majesty's Government in Canada of President Hoover's proposals involves a contingent loss to the Canadian Exchequer of the sum, amounting to £826,100, which would normally be payable in the current year in respect of German reparations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY.

BACON.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: 85.
asked the Secretary of State for War what was the total consumption of bacon for the Army during the first six months of this year; and whether any of this was purchased or consigned from any country or countries other than the Dominions, Holland, the United States, and South America?

The SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Mr. T. Shaw): The total quantity of bacon purchased during the six months in question for consumption by the Army and Air Force was approximately 15,000 cwts. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

PENSIONERS.

Commander SOUTHBY: 86.
asked the Secretary of State for War what is the practice of his Department in administering the pay warrant of 1914 to meet he case of Array pensioners who were then serving with the Territorial forces and who were mobilised on the outbreak of war in 1914?

Mr. SHAW: These pensioners were dealt with as laid down in the pay warrants of 1913 and 1914, which were in force during their war service. They continued to draw pension, in addition to full pay, during their war service, which did not reckon for pension. At the end of the War they were granted an uncovenanted benefit in that their pensions were re-assessed, where it was to their advantage, under the post-war conditions and scales.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, RAE BARELI.

Mr. DOUGLAS HACKING: 87.
asked the Secretary of State for India the reasons for the transfer to another post of Mr. Shyam Sundar Lal Dar, the deputy commissioner at Rae Bareli?

The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Wedgwood Benn): Except for a statement in the Press, I have no knowledge that Mr. Dar has been transferred.

Mr. HACKING: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries and let me know?

Mr. BENN: Yes, if the right hon. Gentleman desires it I will do so.

HINDUSTAN SEVADAL.

Mr. HACKING: 88.
asked the Secretary of State for India whether, in view of the fact that the force of volunteers known as the Hindustan Sevadal was proclaimed an unlawful association during the civil disobedience campaign, he will take steps to prevent the reor-
ganisation of this association, as decided upon by the working committee of the Indian National Congress at Bombay on 10th July?

Mr. BENN: I trust that there will be no recurrence of the conditions which made it necessary last year to declare unlawful associations such as that in question.

POLICE.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 89.
asked the Secretary of State for India the figures for the numbers of armed police in the different Provinces in India and Burma; and whether there has been an addition or reduction of their number in the past year?

Mr. BENN: I am circulating a statement which shows the actual strength of the Military Police in the year 1920 in those Provinces in which these special corps are maintained. As the hon. and gallant Member is no doubt aware, the details of police organisation vary from Province and Province, but generally speaking all the Civil Police in India receive some training in the use of arms, and in each Province a reserve of armed Civil Police is maintained which can be enlarged if necessary. I cannot give figures for these reserves, but, in reply to the second part of the hon. and gallant Member's question, I am circulating figures showing the number of additional Civil Police entertained for use with the armed reserve in various provinces betwen April and December, 1930.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: With regard to the last part of the question, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there has been an addition or a reduction in their numbers during the past year throughout the country?

Mr. BENN: That is the statement in detail which I am circulating. I did state in debate some figures with reference to the increases during the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Following are the statements:

STATEMENT showing the actual strength of the Military Police in various Provinces in 1929.

Assam
3,896


North West Frontier Province
4,035

STATEMENT showing the additional Civil Police entertained for use with the Armed Reserve in various Provinces during the Civil Disobedience Movement.

Madras
600


Bombay
2,200


United Provinces
500


Punjab
900


Bihar and Orissa
400


Central Provinces
245


North West Frontier Province
1,224


Delhi
507


Bengal
500

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 90.
asked the Secretary of State for India how many provincial governments have proposed a reduction in the numbers of police during the past year?

Mr. BENN: I am not aware of any such proposal.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: 91 and 92.
asked the Secretary of State for India (1) whether he can state the amounts of pay received by police constables and sergeants in the Bengal Presidency;
(2) whether he can state the amounts of pay received by police constables and sergeants in the Bombay Presidency?

Mr. BENN: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the answer given or 7th July, 1930, to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Marjoribanks) which contains such information on the subject as I possess. The figures there given were:—Constables 20–24 rupees a month in Bombay and Bengal, Sergeants 150–200 in Bombay, 175–225 in Bengal. These were the figures for district police: those for city police in Bombay and Calcutta are higher.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Has there been any increase or decrease in their pay since that date?

Mr. BENN: That statement is not asked for in the question. I must have notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (VISA CHARGES).

Mr. DAY: 94.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further negotiations have taken place between this country and the United States of America with reference to the reciprocal abolition or reduction of passport visa charges; and will he give particulars?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Dalton): No, Sir. There have been no further developments since the reply given to my hon. Friend on the 3rd of March last.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is proposed to open up any negotiations on this line?

Mr. DALTON: No, Sir, not at present, for the reason given in the answer to which I have referred.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEAGUE OF NATIONS (LABOUR CONVENTIONS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 96.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the policy of this country in regard to the application of Part 13 of the Treaty of Versailles and Article 23 of the League of Nations Covenant; and whether any modification has been made in the binding character of these obligations by the League of Nations?

Mr. DALTON: The policy of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is to fulfil all their treaty obligations, including those arising under the Treaty of Versailles, in which the Covenant of the League of Nations is incorporated. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

Oral Answers to Questions — KING'S ROLL.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of firms who were upon the King's Roll in June last, and the similar numbers on the corresponding dates in each of the last two years?

Miss BONDFIELD: The numbers of employers on the King's Roll were as follow:


In June, 1929
…
…
26,948


In June, 1930
…
…
26,454


In June, 1931
…
…
25,514

Oral Answers to Questions — POOR LAW RELIEF.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: 37.
asked the Minister of Health the number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales at the latest date for which figures are available, and the figure for the corresponding dates in 1928 and 1929?

Mr. GREENWOOD: The total number of persons in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, casuals and persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only) on Saturday, 13th June, 1931, was 983,966. The corresponding numbers for 1928 and 1929, were 1,108,213 and 1,048,614, respectively.

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: If I put a question down, could the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between the figures for those who are dependants and those who are heads of families or independent persons?

Mr. GREENWOOD: I will certainly try.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. AYLES: 44.
(for Mr. ALPASS) asked the Minister of Health what steps are taken by approved societies to notify their insured members affected by the provisions of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1930, of the extension of the period of their insurance under that Act and of the rates of benefit to which they are entitled?

Mr. GREENWOOD: Approved societies are called upon to give notice when a member's insurance is terminating, but this notice would be deferred where the period of insurance is extended under the provisions of the National Health Insurance (Prolongation of Insurance) Act, 1930, and the person therefore continues to be an insured member. The reduction in benefit rates provided under that Act is merely a continuation of the similar reduction applicable for at least a year before the member becomes subject to the Act, and it is not required to be separately notified.

Oral Answers to Questions — COASTGUARD SERVICE.

Commander SOUTHBY: 68.
asked the President of the Board of Trade when
it is expected that the investigations of the Committee of Inquiry on the Coastguard Service will be completed and their report published?

Mr. W. GRAHAM: I understand that the committee have completed their investigations and have drafted their report, which will, I hope, be published shortly.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH SEA FISHERIES.

Major WOOD: 95.
(for Mr. MILLAR) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been given to the inquiry received from the Netherlands Minister as to whether His Majesty's Government would be prepared to participate in an international conference with a view to the revision of the North Sea Fisheries Convention of 1882; and whether he is prepared to invite all the Powers interested in the North Sea fisheries to attend a conference on this subject?

Mr. DALTON: The reply to be returned to the Netherlands Government is still under consideration.

Major WOOD: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the reply will be sent, and the nature of it?

Mr. DALTON: I am afraid not. There are a number of Government Departments concerned and the Foreign Office is only one among many.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS.

Mr. W. J. BROWN: I wish to raise a point of Order in regard to questions. Four or five days ago I handed in a question relating to the Douglas-Pennant case. The Clerk at the Table sent me the usual printed card, and, when I saw him, he raised some question about the form in which the question was drafted. That was two nights ago. I altered the form of the question in such a way as to meet the point the Clerk had put to me, and I very confidently expected that the question would be on the Order Paper to-day. It has not appeared, and, as the matter is one of some urgency, I should be grateful if I could learn what has gone on.

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member says is quite true, but the question was put down for next Monday.

Mr. BROWN: I must make it quite plain that I did not put it down for next Monday.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry. There must have been some mistake.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. S. BALDWIN: May I ask the Prime Minister if he will tell us the Business for next week?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday, Supply, 15th Allotted Day.

Tuesday; Unemployment Insurance (No. 3) Bill, further stages; Consumers' Council, Money Resolution, Committee.

Wednesday; Supply, 16th Allotted Day; Consumers' Council, Money Resolution, Report.

Thursday; Supply, 17th Allotted Day.

The Business for Friday will be announced later.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Is it not possible for Members to know what Votes are going to be put down? Cannot the Opposition make up its mind what Votes it wants to discuss so that we may know?

The PRIME MINISTER: On Monday it will be the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, but I understand it is the desire of hon. Members opposite to treat this as formal, and to put down a Motion on the subject of agriculture in order to provide a wider scope for debate than would be possible in Committee of Supply.

Mr. SCOTT: When is it intended to take the Lords Amendments to the Small Landholders and Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Bill?

The PRIME MINISTER: These are all under consideration. We shall make an announcement when the dates are fixed.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: A number of us have to attend Committees, and we try to get days to suit the convenience of the House. Is it really impossible to know what Votes will be put down on Wednesday?

Mr. BALDWIN: This is the first notice we have had that there are to be three Supply days next week. The only Supply day we knew of was Monday, and we have stated the subject. May I ask the Prime Minister whether he can state the date when the House will resume in October, or whether he would like a question put down on late later day?

The PRIME MINISTER: I shall make a statement to the House at the very earliest moment in relation to that, but a little depends on how far we progress with business before we adjourn. I will

tell the right hon. Gentleman when I am in a position to announce the precise date.

Motion made, and Question put,
That this day, notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 15, Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Eleven of the clock, and that the Proceedings on the Housing (Rural Authorities) Bill and the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 234; Noes, 127.

Division No. 434.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Gillett, George M.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
McElwee, A.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Gould, F.
McEntee, V. L.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
MacLaren, Andrew


Ammon, Charles George
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)


Angell, Sir Norman
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
MacNeill-Weir, L.


Arnott, John
Groves, Thomas E.
Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Manning, E. L.


Ayles, Walter
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Mansfield, W.


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
March, S.


Barnes, Alfred John
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)
Marcus, M.


Barr, James
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Markham, S. F.


Batey, Joseph
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Marley, J.


Bonn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood
Harris, Percy A.
Marshall, Fred


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Mathers, George


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Haycock, A. W.
Matters, L. W.


Benson, G.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)
Messer, Fred


Bondfield, Rt. Hon. Margaret
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Middleton, G.


Bowen, J. W.
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)
Mills, J. E.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)
Milner, Major J.


Brockway, A. Fenner
Herriotts, J.
Montague, Frederick


Brooke, W.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Brothers, M.
Hoffman, P. C.
Morley, Ralph


Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)
Hopkin, Daniel
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Burgess, F. G.
Horrabin, J. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)


Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cameron, A. G.
Isaacs, George
Mort, D. L.


Cape, Thomas
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Muff, G.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Jones, Llewellyn-, F.
Murnin, Hugh


Charleton, H. C.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Chater, Daniel
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Noel-Buxton, Baroness (Norfolk, N.)


Clarke, J. S.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)


Compton, Joseph
Kelly, W. T.
Pailn, John Henry


Cove, William G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Paling, Wilfrid


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M
Perry, S. F.


Daggar, George
Kinley, J.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Dalton, Hugh
Kirkwood, D.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lang, Gordon
Pole, Major D. G.


Day, Harry
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lathan, G. (Sheffield, Park)
Price, M. P.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Lawrence, Susan
Pybus, Percy John


Dukes, C.
Lawrle, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Duncan, Charles
Lawson, John James
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Ede, James Chuter
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)
Raynes, W. R.


Edmunds, J. E.
Leach, W.
Richards, R.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Egan, W. H.
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Elmley, Viscount
Lees, J.
Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)


England, Colonel A.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Ritson, J.


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Romeril, H. G.


Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)
Logan, David Gilbert
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Foot, Isaac
Longbottom, A. W.
Rothschild, J. de


Freeman, Peter
Longden, F.
Rowson, Guy


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)
Lunn, William
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Sanders, W. S.


Sandham, E.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Watkins, F. C.


Sawyer, G. F.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Wellock, Wilfred


Scott, James
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Scurr, John
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
West, F. R.


Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)
Stamford, Thomas W.
Westwood, Joseph


Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Strauss, G. R.
White, H. G.


Sherwood, G. H.
Sutton, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Shield, George William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Shillaker, J. F.
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Shinwell, E.
Tillett, Ben
Wilson, J. (Oldham)


Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Tinker, John Joseph
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Simmons, C. J.
Toole, Joseph
Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)


Simon. E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)
Tout, W. J.
Wise, E. F.


Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)


Sinkinson, George
Vaughan, David
Young, R. S. (Islington, North)


Smith, Ben (Berrnondsey, Rotherhithe)
Viant, S. P.



Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Walker, J.
TELLERS FOR TOE AYES.—


Smith, Lees-, Rt. Hon. H. B. (Keighley)
Wallace, H. W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. William Whiteley.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Dawson, Sir Philip
Muirhead, A. J.


Alnsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles
Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Albery, Irving James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l., W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.
O'Neill, Sir H.


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Peake, Capt. Osbert


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Ferguson, Sir John
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Atholl, Duchess of
Fielden, E. B.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)
Fison, F. G. Clavering
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Frece, Sir Walter de
Reid, David D. (County Down)


Beaumont, M. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Remer, John R.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)
Reynolds, Col. Sir James


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Roes, Ronald D.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Boyce, Leslie
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Salmon, Major I.


Brass, Captain Sir William
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Briscoe, Richard George
Hanbury, C.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Skelton, A. N.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hartington, Marquess of
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Smithers, Waldron


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Butler, R. A.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Campbell, E. T.
Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hurd, Percy A.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E. A.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)
Iveagh, Countess of
Thomson, Mitchell-, Rt. Hon. Sir W.


Chapman, Sir S.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Christle, J. A.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Train, J.


Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George
Law, Sir Alfred (Derby, High Peak)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Colman, N. C. D.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Colville, Major D. J.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Warrender, Sir Victor


Cooper, A. Duff
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Cranborne, Viscount
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Womersley, W. J.


Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)
Marjoribanks, Edward



Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Dalkeith, Earl of
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Major Sir George Hennessy and Sir


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.
Frederick Thomson.


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)



Resolution agreed to.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION.

Mr. MILLS: Towards the end of the Debate that ended this morning, I was attempting to draw a distinction between Members of this House whose previous experience had been in industries where holidays were given without pay as against others who had been in employ-
ment where holidays had been fixed and paid for. In that respect I understand that I have done the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) an injustice. The whole of his career has not been associated with teaching, and, in fact, he has shared some of our industrial experience. I wish, therefore, to apologise to him for having misrepresented him.

BILLS REPORTED.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee D.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 210.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WAREHAM EXTENSION) BILL [Lords].

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

SCARBOROUGH CORPORATION BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

CORBY (NORTHANTS) AND DISTRICT WATER BILL [Lords].

GRAND UNION CANAL (LEICESTER CANALS PURCHASE, ETC.) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with Amendments; Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (CHEPPING WYCOMBE) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GREAT MARLOW WATER) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill, as amended, to be considered Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

STANDING ORDERS.

Resolution reported from the Select Committee;
That, in the ease of the Bethlem Hospital (Amendment) Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the Bill be permitted to proceed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Finance Bill,

Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Bill, without Amendment.

Consequential Amendments to—

Architects (Registration) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to prohibit the importation of products of convict labour or forced labour; and for purposes connected therewith." [Prevention of Imports of Products of Convict or Forced Labour Bill [Lords].]

PREVENTION OF IMPORTS OF PRODUCTS OF CONVICT OR FORCED LABOUR BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 211.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[14TH ALLOTTED DAY.]

Considered in Committee.

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1931.

[Sir ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]

CLASS IV.

BOARD OF EDUCATION.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £29,862,377, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Education, and of the various Establishments connected therewith, including sundry Grants-in-Aid.

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Lees-Smith): I have to ask the approval of the Committee for a sum which amounts to a little over £48,000,000, which is an increase of about £3,000,000 over the Estimate introduced last year. In giving an account of the educational record of the year, I must explain that the period which came under my administration was actually only about three weeks. For the greater part of the year the progress which I shall describe was under the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan), whose energy and zeal on account of education I have found in all directions. The Board of Education during the year has also suffered the death of Sir Aubrey Symonds, the late Permanent Secretary. He was very ill when I came to the Board, and he died a few weeks later. He was a great civil servant. His was a personality which showed that a civil servant can be not only an efficient administrator, but a lover of manly sports, a very shrewd man of affairs, and one who won the affection of his fellow men. Mr. E. H. Pelham, who will be familiar to all who have visited the Board for many years past, has been appointed to succeed him.
In giving a review of the progress of education during the year, I think that the most convenient course for me to follow will be for me to take the ordinary child from the moment when he
or she enters our charge, trace their careers till they leave us for the university or for the work of life, and say something of the main issues which arise at each stage. I found, on going to the Board, that the first gap in our educational system which came to my notice was the gap between the years of one to five. Up to the age of one year, the ordinary working class child does receive some guidance and care from the State, because the mother takes the child to the maternity centre, but most of them cease to attend at the end of the first 12 months, with the consequence that when the children come to the infants' school at the age of five, no less than 20 per cent. of them are suffering from physical defects, which in hundreds of thousands of cases impair their vitality and poison the rest of their lives. One method of dealing with this evil is the establishment of nursery schools. At the present moment there are 44 of these nursery schools, plans for 35 more have been approved or are under consideration, and there are a further 35 which are proposed to be built within the next two years. Of course, this is progress, but, in point of fact, the total number of places in those schools is only 3,300, and this does not give a very broad basis of experience of the system.
The Consultative Committee of the Board of Education, the committee which produced the Hadow Report and the Junior School Report has now turned its attention to the whole problem of children under the school age. They are going very closely into the proposal for nursery schools, and into the corresponding alternative proposals for nursery classes in infant schools. I will await their report, but I would like to take this opportunity of saying that it is already quite evident that the life work of Miss Margaret MacMillan, who died in March, will, in some shape or another, leave a permanent mark upon the health of the children of our land.
Nursery schools, in my opinion, are not really part of the educational work of the Board so much as part of its medical and physical work. I will, therefore, take this opportunity of saying a few words on that part of the general work. It seems to me to be practically impossible to
waste money if it directly increases the physical efficiency and the stamina of the race.
As the Committee is aware, the backbone of the medical work of the Board of Education is the system of medical inspection, which takes place three times in the course of the school career of a normal child. In looking through the various reports of local authorities, I have got into the habit of taking as one of the tests of a progressive authority the provision it makes for following up this medical inspection by nurses, medical officers, clinics, specialists, hospital treatment, special schools and orthopaedic schemes. I may say that I did get out some figures as to what was the record of progress in all those directions, but I do not think I will give them to the Committee, because they are rather long, and we have only four hours. But, broadly, they show a steady and continuous progress in all those directions for some years. The progress has not been in any way retarded, but has continued quite rapidly, even during the financial stringency to which local authorities have been subject during the last 12 months.

Lord EUSTACE PERCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us figures as to dental treatment?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I have not those figures, but I would say that, in my opinion, the dental treatment is not one of the most successful parts of our work. I have come to the conclusion that when you come to the actual details of physical training and physical culture in regard to children, it is not so much a matter of teaching them as a matter of habit and practice, which depend upon how the school is run from A to Z, and this rests with the teachers. But—and this is a point I wish to emphasise—I think it also rests very considerably with the actual buildings in which the children are located. The new type of open-air school building, with its sides built of glass, which open and shut in accordance with the sun, and the air and the breeze, is an inspiration to the teachers, and has a wonderful effect on the physical health of the children. I had a very interesting discussion with one of the new inspectors of the Board who, a short time ago, was a master at one of our great public schools, and he told me that he had
already come to associate the alert, happy and bright-eyed children with those new-open-air school buildings, and they do make a sharp, pathetic contrast with the dark and cheerless buildings you often find only a few hundred yards away. On new school buildings—of course, it is partly as a result of the special grant given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Central Newcastle—the capital expenditure last year, put forward by local authorities and approved by the Board of Education, was a sum of over £9,000,000, which is the largest sum ever spent in a year.
In reviewing the elementary school work the question which overshadows all others is the revolution which is taking place in the system of reorganisation on the Hadow plan, and it may interest the Committee to hear how this plan strikes one who sees it for the first time. I remember some years ago being told that if you are a professional man or a university man you will either succeed or not by the age of 30. If you do not succeed by that time you will never succeed at all. In the life of the worker the fateful and decisive year appears to be the age of 11, a terrible thought. They are stamped for ever at the age of 11 when they are selected or not to go on to a secondary school, or, mostly in London, to a central selective school; they become one of the comparatively select few or they remain in the ordinary elementary school and take part in the mass life of their class. I wish to encourage those boys and girls to go on. Education exists for the normal as well as for the exceptional individual, and the highest standard of general proficiency is just as important as an intensive cultivation of unusual ability.
The whole principle of the Hadow report is that the educational system is for all sorts and conditions of children, for the ordinary and backward child just as much as for the clever child and, therefore, under that system, when it is complete, every child at the age of 11 will go to a fresh school and, if it is an ordinary elementary school, it will be a school which is adapted for children who have a practical rather than an academic bent of mind. These schools will contain some of the very finest material in the country, the kind of boys and girls who may not pass an examination but who will manage to do well in
after life, and they are being so arranged that for every year instead of there being only one class there shall be two or three alternative classes, each with a different curriculum, different teachers and a different time table, suited to the needs of children of different types. Let me take an example of the difference you will find from the school of a few years ago. These estimates have increased by £3,000,000, and a considerable part of that sum is due to the special provision which has been made in these schools for practical work for teaching in handwork, woodwork and metal work for boys, cookery, laundry and dressmaking for girls, elementary science and rural pursuits.
I do not want the position to be misunderstood. This is not intended to be vocational or industrial training. The worker is a human being with interests and desires and needs which are outside his ordinary work, and we have no intention of regarding him as an instrument of industry from the age of 11. But they are methods of teaching which are not too remote from actual life. It is following the modern doctrine of using realistic studies as instruments of education. I may say that there is great economy in the system because this practical instruction is very costly, the classroom is fairly elaborate, the classes are small and a necessary larger proportion of teachers to the number of children is required, but as the schools are only for children over the age of 11 there is considerable economy in being able to concentrate it in a number of schools for those children who have passed the age of 11 years.
I have been greatly interested by one feature of the schools which has not been very widely discussed so far. It is a feature which, I think, in the long run will prove to be the most important of all. Education is a thing of the spirit, and in these schools there is now developing a corporate spirit, the meaning of which will be well understood by those who have been at schools which possess it and who know that its mental and moral influence on the boys and girls is perhaps more potent than any other influence. That is what is developing in these senior reorganised schools. You cannot develop it in schools where the majority
of the children are under the age of eleven and amongst whom any really strong community sense is not developed. If you take these schools you will find that they are divided into houses with competitions between houses; and one of the features is that they have broken away from the traditional public school system. It is not only a competition in games and house matches but in work, on account of which shields and cups are awarded. This balance between work and play is a great improvement on the traditional public school. They have systems of prefects by which the discipline of the school is largely maintained by the boys themselves. They have school magazines and old boys' associations, and, particularly, there is to be seen that camaraderie between masters and boys which is one of the most remarkable changes in the development of education since the war.
I am convinced that within 20 years these schools will have produced in this country a new and remarkable national type, healthy, practical, self-reliant and responsible, more capable than any previous generation and better equipped to meet the tremendous problems of the next generation.
It is difficult to get any exact figures to indicate how far this process of reorganisation has been carried, but the figure which summarises it best is that there are, I estimate, at the present time between one-third and one-fourth of the children over eleven in these senior re-organised schools. If I am asked to predict at what rate this re-organisation will proceed, or whether it will ever be complete, I am not able to do so, and one of the reasons is the voluntary schools difficulty. It is a difficulty which has not only postponed the raising of the school age but it is standing in the way of this reorganisation which is necessary for the proper education of the children of the present age. I cannot pursue that subject, and I would only say that I am having conversations with all the denominations and interests concerned and I am not without hope that some agreement, a fair and just agreement, will be reached.
May I go on to secondary education? There is an increase of £900,000 in the Estimate for higher education. The number of pupils in secondary schools is
about 400,000 and the proportion of these pupils who come from elementary schools is now about three-quarters. Perhaps this can be put better in this way. About 10 per 1,000 of the population to-day are in grant-earning secondary schools, and that is a proportion which is about four times as great as it was 25 years ago.

Lord E. PERCY: Is that the proportion of the school population or of the general population?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: Of the general population.

Captain PEAKE: Can the President of the Board of Education give us the proportion of the school population?

Mr. LEES-SMITH: No. This increase in the proportion of children in secondary schools is already having a very far-reaching social consequence, of which one evidence is that there is now a continually increasing invasion of the monopoly which the middle-classes and the traditional public schools have hitherto had of the higher professions and administrative positions.
I have tried to get some measure as to the nature and capacity of mind which is now emerging from secondary schools. I have made some inquiries as to what has been the result of the system of State scholarships given to children in these secondary schools. As the Committee knows, the Board of Education for many years gave 200 scholarships a year to elder boys and girls at the school on a certain plan and in accordance with the results of what is called the second school class examination, that is an examination for boys and girls who stay on at these schools until the age of 18. The 200 scholarships were increased to 300 last year by the right hon. Member for Central Newcastle. I think it is generally realised that that increase has been completely justified. Practically all the State scholars go on to the universities. I have had an examination made of their records since the system was established 11 years ago, and I find that, taking all the State scholars together, 52 per cent. of the men obtained first-class honours at the universities, and 28 per cent. of the women. Anyone who knows what first-class honours at the universities mean—there
are many university men in this House, but not many with first-class honours—will realise what a remarkable result this is. It indicates what a fund of ability is now being unlocked for the benefit of the State, and it suggests what an amount of ability undoubtedly remains still untapped.
In connection with this subject I have been asked a question and suggestions have been made, I have been asked whether there is any means of testing the relative capacity of the free-place pupils and the fee-paying pupils—those who win scholarships and those who can afford to pay fees. It is not an easy question to which to give a reply, but I have the best reply that is available. I admit that examinations are not a test of everything, but, after all, it is one of the main purposes of these secondary schools to prepare children for the school-leaving examinations, and the results of the examinations are the best test that we have of the quality of the children and the work of the school. Taking the results of the school-leaving examinations I find this: Of the foe payers only 39 per cent. of those who left over the age of 14 took the examination and 29 per cent. passed, whereas of the free-place pupils 63 per cent. took it and 54 per cent., or nearly double the proportion, of the free students passed. Although there are limitations to examinations, this does indicate that, according to the best test we can get, there is a great difference both in the capacity and the willingness to work of the two sets of pupils.
I must say a few words about technical schools. In the discussions and literature on this subject I have noticed a great deal more attention given to elementary and secondary schools than to technical schools. Yet in point of fact the technical schools are one of the most cheerful and vigorous parts of the whole system. Anyone who goes to a technical school will immediately notice the intense concentration of the students upon their work. They are the schools for ambitious youth, but although they come from ambition they stay for interest. One also notices the position of the teachers in the technical schools. They have pupils who do not come to them compulsorily, whom they have to hold and whose interest they have to maintain because they are voluntary. If they do not maintain
it their class will run away and their position comes to an end. My broad impression is that technical schools are producing men, of the grade of works managers, who are equal to any in the world. But they are not producing the same number of men and women for the higher positions still, as, say, in a country like Germany.
Perhaps the main reason for this is that our system of secondary education has developed to a considerable extent only lately, whereas Germany has had an efficient system of secondary education for about 70 years. The result is that our technical schools hitherto have drawn their pupils mainly from those who leave school at 14, but from secondary schools they have hitherto drawn only a very small stream. Now this is coming to an end. The great expansion of secondary education is affecting our technical schools and our industry as well, and in some of the technical schools I visited I found that the majority of the students came from secondary schools. This is raising a number of problems which I think we cannot yet answer—problems of the recruitment of industry. If industry now wishes to retain the clever boys who used to leave school and go into the factory at 14 but who now go on to the secondary school and stay until 16, industry will need to adjust its methods of recruitment to a later age. That is one of the problems.
There are a great many problems of that kind to which we have not yet got an answer, but which up to now have not received sufficient attention in proportion to the other problems of education. For that reason I appreciate the action of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) in his appointment of the two very powerful committees on education for engineering and education for salesmanship. I propose to follow up that policy. There has already begun an inquiry, in conjunction with the Joint Industrial Council, into training for the printing trade. I have discussed with my new art adviser how far our schools of art might be made more useful to those industries whose sales and whose power of holding their own is influenced by the artistic character of their goods, and I think a very useful series of inquiries with practical results
will follow. I have also been very considerably impressed with the small part played in this country by trade schools and by part-time day schools, in comparison with the very important place that they occupy in the educational and industrial systems of the Continent. I am not sure that we have not something to learn. I have, therefore, asked our chief inspector of technical education and one of his colleagues in a few weeks to go to the Continent and visit Germany, France, Belgium, Holland and Czechoslovakia, in order to see whether there are not some lessons which we may very well learn.
That is the broad survey which I propose to make. I have no doubt that a good many proposals will be made today for further educational improvements. I doubt whether there is any one of them with which I shall not myself agree. But I must point out that I am now constrained by financial difficulties, and by more than financial difficulty—by financial perils which affect every country in the world. The ultimate hopes of many may have to he postponed. But the central aim of this Government has been to take our people through this period of difficulty without permanently impairing the social services on which their standard of life depends. That is the test by which these Estimates must be judged. I must summarise in a few words a large amount of material which I have not time to develop. The number of classes with over 50 pupils has been reduced from nearly 11,000 to nearly 9,000. The number of black-list schools has been reduced in the last two years from 2,000 to 1,500. The number of certificated teachers has increased by 3,000. The number of un-certificated and supplementary teachers has diminished by 1,800. The great revolution of the Hadow scheme has steadily progressed. There are more new buildings than in any previous period. Nursery schools, secondary schools, technical schools, and senior schools have all steadily developed, and by every educational test the social services of this country have not only been maintained but have been raised, and the central purpose for which the Government exists has in the educational sphere been carried out.

Mr. HARRIS: I would like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his maiden speech as President of the Board of Education. I think it is the first opportunity he has had to show the Committee the mettle of which he is made. If any justification were wanted for my hon. Friends having selected education for discussion on one of the small number of allotted days, the right hon. Gentleman's first appearance would certainly justify it. Even if it were not his maiden effort, I think we are entitled to at least one day to discuss the great question of education. The right hon. Gentleman's Department has got off very lightly. When my Noble Friend the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) was President of the Board of Education, every year he had to go through a very severe gruelling. Every action of his was severely scrutinised, and we always had a very full Debate. It is about time that we turned the searchlight on to the work of the Board under the present administration. Two years ago when the change of Government took place, great expectations were aroused as to the probability of a change in policy. Indeed it was said that a change of spirit was to take place in the Board and when the right hon. Baronet the Member for Central Newcastle (Sir C. Trevelyan) was appointed President, we thought that at any rate we would have vigour and a new outlook at the Board. Of course most of the right hon. Baronet's time was occupied and his attention concentrated on piloting legislation through this House.
I see a great number of educationists here, and I would say to them, that we can do almost as much in administration, by putting vitality into existing Acts of Parliament as by introducing new laws. I hazard the statement that under the Act of 1918 as consolidated in the Act of 1921, if the local authorities were willing, and the Board prepared to cooperate, everything on which we are keen could be put into operation, with, of course, some important exceptions. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman who has made such a modest speech is going to be a great success as President. At any rate, he shows enthusiasm and the willingness to listen to criticism, but I offer this comment to him—that there
has been no great change at the Board since the change of Government. I do not think it is too much to say that, except for the speed with which certain work is being done, there has been continuity of policy. It is the same old Board, with the same old traditions, and though, perhaps, it moves a little faster than it did formerly, there is no revolutionary change in its attitude towards education.
I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman started at the beginning, with the babies. I agree with him that much of the work of the teachers in the schools and of the medical service is handicapped by neglect of the children in the preschool age. We are now accustomed to look forward to the reports of Sir George Newman on the medical service. They are such excellent documents, that the) have a world-wide circulation, both are read in the Dominions and in foreign countries. He pointed out, I think in 1929, how the school medical service is burdened in this respect, and I mention this to the right hon. Gentleman with special reference to his concluding remarks and his warning about economy. Sir George Newman says:
The school medical service is burdened financially and administratively with the physical and mental defects and impairment of the pre-school child.
It is because of neglect of the child before the child enters into the care of the educational service that much of our expenditure is necessary, and if we could co-ordinate the work of the Board with the work of the Ministry of Health, instead of divorcing them as we are doing at present, much of our expenditure on the medical service would be spared. The right hon. Gentleman seemed pleased about the nursery schools, but I hope that he will not be too pleased, because at present there are only 44, and I do not think that the total of the figures which he gave would come to much more than 100. If nursery schools are such good things, if they mean such advantages to the child, if they save so much expenditure on medical treatment, surely we are entitled to something on a larger scale than the right hon. Gentleman has indicated.
I realise the difficulty of finding convenient sites in the centres of big towns, but where there is a will there is a way,
and, if the right hon. Gentleman means business, then nursery schools will come into being. I hope that he will not be hindered in this matter by tradition. These schools are wanted urgently, and I believe that a lot could be done to meet the need by alterations and additions to ordinary infant departments. Of course, where the ideal site is available, the ideal thing is to have a separate nursery school, but where a site is not available, I believe that by adding a kitchen and making open-air arrangements in the school playground, and by various other alterations, it would be possible to bring the nursery school—which the medical officer says is so necessary—within the reach of every parent whose child requires such treatment and such opportunities.
I was interested by the right hon. Gentleman's sketch of the medical service and even more interested by the very acute interruption of the Noble Lord. He brushed aside, when he was asked about it, the one real difficulty—the difficulty about teeth. I do not imagine I shall make myself popular with the children by preaching the importance of the dentist. Nothing is hated more by the children than dental treatment, but nothing is more important. The Noble Lord asked for statistics. I think he will find statistics in the annual report of the Board of Education and also in Sir George Newman's report. They require to be brought up to date, I agree. The latest figures which I have show that only a quarter of the children who require treatment are getting treatment, and the present figures are much more serious than that. In some areas there is an official organisation with proper clinics and proper hospital centres, but there are also areas where such a system is conspicuous by its absence.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will throw himelf into this important work, because it means much for the health and well-being, not only of the children, but of the race as a whole in the future. I would direct his attention to an interesting report on the dental treatment of school children in New Zealand where, owing largely to the energy and ability of Colonel Hunter, a distinguished dentist, they have in that Dominion, where there is a scattered
population, an almost complete system of dental treatment. I am all for learning from the Empire, when I get the opportunity of doing so, and I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he should get a copy of this report and see if it will not help him to complete his dental system.
When the right hon. Gentleman came to the elementary schools, he—perhaps wisely—kept the unpleasant figures to the end. I suppose as a novice in his job he did not feel prepared to elaborate and explain those figures. I do not know whether it was with satisfaction or with regret—he made no comment—that he told us there were now 9,000 classes over 50. But is it true to say that there are in the elementary schools 60,000 classes over 40? If so, that is not a reason for satisfaction and it does not show that there is much room for economising on school buildings. I was glad to hear his reference to school buildings. It is a bold statement, but I do not think it would be far wrong to say that at least one-third of the school buildings in the country could do with rebuilding or alteration. We have discovered a new conception of what the school building ought to be. Instead of being, as at present, three or four storeys high, with elaborate Gothic decorations, the new school tends to be a building of large windows, freely admitting the air and presenting no barriers to keep the sunlight from the children.
In his enthusiasm, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not concentrate entirely on new buildings but will see that some of the old buildings in the slums and the crowded areas of great cities are remodelled and brought up to date. The children in the crowded areas require the sun and bright modern conditions and comfort even more than the children in the new garden suburbs which are springing up round our cities. While on the question of the size of classes, I should like to know if it is true that the Board is still sanctioning buildings for junior schools with classes of 50 on the roll. I am informed that such is the case and if so, it is a very reactionary idea. My informant tells me that it is due to the exceptional year through which we are passing now, in which there is what is termed a "bulge," owing to the increased birth rate after the War. It is a very
poor consolation, however, to the children who are now being taught in overcrowded classes, to know that they are suffering because of this special "bulge." I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to be more careful in passing plans providing for these very large classes.
His next reference was to reorganisation. That word is becoming like the blessed word "Mesopotamia." It is being regarded as the secret of all educational policy. It has become the beginning and end of all discussions on education. Like rationalisation, it is the cure for all evils. Of course, I accept entirely this remarkable document issued by the Consultative Committee—"The Education of the Adolescent"—and I know what a lot we owe to the Noble Lord for his driving power in forcing on reorganisation. I accept the principle that it is right to provide, wherever possible and convenient, schools with junior and senior departments. But I add the proviso—where the site and the buildings lend themselves to it. I am told by people in contact with the Board, and I say this most respectfully, that the Board has gone mad about reorganisation. Not a plan or proposal or scheme will they look at, I am told, hardly an alteration to a window, unless it is part of a reorganisation scheme. I happen to be in close touch with the schools in my area and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to be careful and to Judge each scheme on its merits.
5.0 p.m.
I have seen schemes where the good achieved was almost more than outweighed by the disadvantages involved. I have seen the breaking up of schools which had fine old traditions. I have seen a school which had a separate boys' and girls' departments with separate head teachers, turned into a mixed school, the departments merged and the boys and girls placed under one teacher and then the old traditions disappeared. In some cases, although you got a nice airy senior school, with comparatively small classes, yet owing to the circumstances of the district, the result has been overcrowded classes in the junior department, causing great inconvenience. Thus, whatever good has been done, has
been counterbalanced by disadvantages. I would say to him, if I may, with very great deference, that reorganisation is not the end but the means, and we should be very careful about forcing it on every area irrespective of local conditions. Those of us who believe in reorganisation want it to raise the general level. In the Hadow Report, page 308, it is stated:
The standard of staffing in proportion to the number of pupils in the schools as well as the qualification of the teachers should approximate to those required for the corresponding forms in secondary schools.
It is further stated:
The education of children over the age of 11 in Modern Schools or in Senior Classes is one species of the genus "Secondary Education." It is not an inferior species, and it ought not to be hampered by conditions of accommodation and equipment inferior to those of the schools now described as secondary. We attach great importance, therefore, to ensuring that, so far as possible, and with due allowances for differences in the character of the curriculum and the age range of the pupils, the construction and equipment of modern schools should approximate to the standard from time to time required by the Board in schools working under the regulations for secondary schools.
I am heart and soul with that. But many of the senior schools are far below the standard of the secondary schools. There is often very little equipment in the science rooms, and there is insufficiency of implements for boys to do their work. Very often these schools are insufficiently staffed; there are not the necessary teachers with the proper qualifications. If these are to be made a real success it must be recognised that these senior schools must carry out the ideal which was in view when they were established. There are the same old schools, the same old classes, the same old equipment, the same absence of school hall as in the old elementary schools. It is really the old show under a new name. It is like a Ford car masquerading as a Rolls Royce. It has got a new body and a new chassis, but it is still the old Ford. The old tradition of the Act of 1870 still clings to education. The word "elementary" was embodied in that Act to placate the mid-Victorians who were shocked at the children of ordinary people being forced to get education, but were persuaded to
adopt compulsory education by the adjective "elementary." I remember the struggle that took place when the Cockerton decision surcharged those local authorities which attempted to expand the syllabus and to introduce all sorts of subjects beyond the three R's. We all recognise now that the Balfour Act was a brave, bold attempt to bring in a new spirit and to recognise that the people were entitled to more generous education. But very small progress has really been made.
I was a little disappointed by the complacency of the right hon. Gentleman about secondary education. After 30 years of the Balfour Act 10 per cent. of the child population are getting secondary education, after all the efforts which were made. The distribution of the schools is very uneven. The child in Manchester has more chance of getting secondary education than the child in London or in some of the other cities. We want to stimulate the local authorities to come to a common level. I saw in a paper which came into my hands accidentally the other day that a deputation from East Ham waited upon the Minister of Education. The people who live in East Ham have great enthusiasm for education. They are largely composed of the class who are foremen and skilled workmen and who believe in education, but their incomes are very modest. They have got a secondary school which they are very proud of, and they found that very much more use could be made of it if fees were abolished. The right hon. Gentleman, or I believe it was one of his officials, received the deputation and was firm in his refusal to permit the abolition of fees.

Lord E. PERCY: May I ask the hon. Member whether the London County Council are not charging full fees for every child who goes to a secondary school in London?

Mr. HARRIS: That is a matter between the London County Council and the Board of Education. It was the policy of the Labour party at the last election "Secondary education for all." I am not a great believer in phrases. I think these catch-phrases are always dangerous. The Labour party have a
good many memories which, after those two years of responsibility and difficulties, it would be cruel to remind them of. The majority in the London County Council are not prepared to adopt that policy, and on the principle of local economy that is their responsibility. But where a local authority, with local knowledge at its disposal, is prepared to shoulder the burden it is rather a tall order for the Labour Minister to refuse to foot the bill and pay his half of the share. I believe the Noble Lord would have been a little more sympathetic, as he is a great believer in local autonomy. What we have been asking for for many years is the abolition of the distinction between elementary and secondary education. It is utterly artificial and unreal as a dividing line. The only dividing line which I recognise is that between good education and bad education. I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he wants to translate into fact his theory of secondary education for all, the right way to set about it is to level up the conditions and standards of all senior schools to those of the secondary schools.
I am surprised to find that the inspectorate at the Board of Education is divided into two classes, one who inspect secondary schools and the other who inspect elementary schools. The right hon. Gentleman is no doubt impressed with the need for economy, and he could coordinate the work of those two branches and they could inspect areas according to their need instead of inspecting the schools according to their classes. The consultative committee pointed out that the senior schools should not become inferior to the secondary schools and that to many of the children practical work in science or the domestic arts might be a stimulus to intellectual effort. There should be the same status for boys at a senior school as for those who have literary bent and who have the gift of passing examinations. I was interested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that the future life of a great many children is determined at the age of 11. How very few children can be judged as to their character and ability at that early age? Many of our ablest men and women do not start to mature until they are 14 or 15. In a previous Debate, I referred to the brilliant career of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
Epping (Mr. Churchill). Recently the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping told us that he was longer in the bottom form at Harrow than any other boy. He did not start to mature until he was 16 or 17 years of age. [An HON. MEMBER: "Has he started yet?"] Whatever hon. Members may think of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping nobody can question his literary gifts and scholastic attainments. Fortunately, he was in a position to acquire these in later years. If he had come from a poor home he would have been turned down at the age of 11 and would not have been able to get a scholarship.
A more generous conception of education is required. We have been making interesting experiments in classes of unemployed juveniles. When these were started the young people came very reluctantly, but not only have these classes been a complete success but the young persons have come to recognise their utility. Although they have left school probably for a year or two years, in many cases they have been able to get an industrial training and to enter the category of technical or skilled workers. I happened this morning to be down at the docks. I had to see a son off to New Zealand, and it was an interesting lesson to me on the importance of technical training. Here was an ordinary cargo boat, a motor ship. There was not a single stoker on board. Practically not an unskilled man was required, but there were 15 engineers, and every man on the ship, except perhaps a few of the deck hands, were skilled men, who not only required but had to have some form of technical education. In other words, the old idea that there was room for a large number of' untrained, unskilled, or uneducated persons is going. "Hewers of wood and drawers of water" made the argument for keeping education elementary but they are no longer required or required in such small numbers that the unskilled labourer is largely a drug in the market. Therefore, you have to level up the whole standard of education in this country. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will remember, when he attends his next Cabinet meeting, and is told to go slow, when they will probably remind him of the financial stringency due to Germany failing to keep her engagements and carry out the Young
Plan, that Germany, since the War a debtor nation and in a financial state very near bankruptcy, has been developing, with all the energy, imagination and capacity for which she is notorious in educational matters, her technical education, not for a privileged section, but for the whole nation. Her system of continuation schools that was voluntary before the War has now been made compulsory and complete.

Lord E. PERCY: indicated dissent.

Mr. HARRIS: The Noble Lord corrects me. Certainly in the districts that I visited a couple of years ago, in Prussia, in Bavaria, and in Saxony, I saw being put up a comparatively complete system of compulsory continuation schools. Provisions on those lines were made in the Act of 1918, but they have never been put into operation in this country, partly because of the opposition of labour, partly because of the opposition of employers, partly because of the abortive effort of 1921, and partly because of financial difficulties, but if it had not been for the financial difficulties of Germany, I think that that country as an industrial competitor, owing to what she has been doing in universal, not spasmodic, technical training for her workers, would have been a very much more serious competitor even than she was before the War.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will apply his mind to these problems. There is a Board of Education. We have often asked questions about it. I believe the Board never meets. There are all sorts of members, including the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings knows all about it, and perhaps he will tell us what the Board is, whether it is really a Board, or largely a phantom. I think it is time that the Board came into line with other Government Departments, The War Office has its staff college and reasons out the military problem as a whole. The Admiralty does the same thing, and I suggest that now that great changes and great economic upheavals are going on throughout the world, with the increased importance of science and mechanics in our industrial life, the Board might very well be made a real Board, and have on it, say, a technical member, a scientific member, a commercial member, so that
the Board of Education would really represent the life and activities of the nation. It may be that this would require legislation, but I make a present of that suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, who was a distinguished university professor before coming to this House, with a great scholastic career behind him. I hope he will show that he is imbued with a really progressive spirit, that he is open to new ideas, that he will break away from many of the old traditions, and mark his time as President of the Board of Education as one of innovation and a new spirit in education.

Mr. BEAUMONT: I feel sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be duly gratified by the pat on the back, not unmixed with a slight paternal reproof, given him by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). But there was one remark of the hon. Member of which I hope he will look into the full implications. The hon. Member sought to draw a parallel between this country and Germany. If it is true that Germany in her financial stringency has gone into considerable educational expenditure, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether this financial stringency might not have been less if the educational expenditure had been less, and whether, in the event of starvation setting in in Germany, the technical education of the people who cannot get work to do and bread to eat will be of very great use to them. But subject to those remarks, I feel that on all sides of the House we must congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the presentation of these Estimates, and congratulate him too that he has managed during his period of office to keep party politics as far as possible out of education.
Perhaps I may be pardoned in my doubt as to whether changes of policy, the revolutions that appear to be urged by the last speaker really conduce to the benefit of education, and, when in the heat and anger of Debate we fling educational insults across the Floor at each other, whether the cause of education is much served thereby. I commend to the right hon. Gentleman the policy of development as far as possible by administration. Even those of us who still have doubts as to whether the making of education compulsory was as great a
service to the State as it is sometimes made out to be, even we agree that, having done that 60 years ago, the only possible course is to develop the education of the country to the full, and get as soon as is reasonably possible into such a state that the best abilities of every child in the country are developed to the full.
That is the object of all of us. We differ as to methods. Some of us adopt the attitude that we see things that we dislike going on in the schools, and say that it is intolerable that children should live under those conditions for a day longer. There are others who say that all alterations in educational policy should be for the next generation but one, and it is between those two points of view, which I have deliberately put as extremes, that the President of the Board of Education should steer a middle course. I think I may congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having so far done that very successfully. It is a very difficult matter to debate the whole of the educational Vote of the year in the short time at our disposal, and if in my few remarks I seem to produce more criticism than commendation, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise that that is not in any carping spirit, but simply because I think it is generally recognised that we can see the good work we do, but it is sometimes necessary to point out the bad work.
I did welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that education is a thing of the spirit, because that is the great difficulty now. He dilated, and very rightly, on the wonderful increase that is going on from the passing of examinations and the social change by the children of the elementary schools coming into the more intellectual professions, and taking their place in what has previously been the monopoly of those with more money and who have possibly been better educated. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman to remember the enormous class of children who are as useful to the State as the others, but whose mentalities do not lie in an academic or intellectual direction. That brings me to the first point where I believe that the Board of Education, under all administrations, have for many years past been lacking, and that is in the question of rural education.
The advantages of reorganisation were put forward by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green and by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke of the opportunity of getting the children out of the junior schools into specially trained, specially selected schools, where their own special abilities could be best utilised. Yes, and in the urban areas it is hoped very soon that it will be possible in a big town to have various schools—this is one of my dreams, and I am sure it is a dream also of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—adapted to various types of children; but you cannot do that in the country, because you have in these scattered rural areas only one central school to which the children can all go, and that is too often, as the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green said, the same old school under a different name. The rural child is absolutely different in mentality from the urban child. He is not inferior, but he is different, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman in his policy—and I feel sure that he will do it to the best of his ability—to concentrate on getting the rural children a square deal, to develop as far as is possible the central schools with a rural bias, and to see, when the Hadow report is carried out, that the reorganisation is done not merely to comply with the letter of the Hadow report, but in such a way as to give those children the best possible chance of developing and learning to live the life that they have got to lead.
I know my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education is always terrified by the theory, which he rightly condemns, of saying that a child, because it is a working-class child, should be condemned to a working-class life. I quite agree and I am all in favour of giving the child who can develop and get out and get on, every chance to do so. It should be remembered, however, that these children are after all the minority. The greatest fault of what are known as the traditional public schools, the schools of the wealthy, is that they are too apt to push as far as possible the academically minded, and to teach the less academically minded that they are only fit either to sit on an office stool or, if they have money, to waste their time in amusements which may be very sound as amusements, but which, as a
life's work, are useless. I am terrified that that danger will come into our State education, and that the normal non-academically mind child, who is not going to rise very far or fall very far, will not get the education which will teach him to live the life he is actually going to have. I am afraid that we shall press on the best child instead of developing to the full the average child and teaching him to make the best of the conditions in which he lives.
This brings me to another point in which I feel that some action is urgently necessary. That is the question of the mentally deficient child in the ordinary elementary school. The hon. Gentleman has probably got the figures of the number of certified or uncertified mentally deficient children who are in the ordinary elementary schools because there is not room for them elsewhere. Everyone will agree that that is not good either for the child or for the other children in the school, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to press on local authorities as much as he possibly can the necessity of enlarging the number of places in special schools and special institutions for mentally deficient children in order to take that disgrace out of the elementary schools.
It would not be advisable at the present time to go into the question of teachers' salaries; but I want to pay a great tribute to the work that is being carried on by the teachers of this country, particularly by the teachers in the small rural schools, who peg away year after year under heart-breaking conditions and do "magnificent work. I also want to ask the Minister, with confidence, to do everything he can to destroy the idea that the teaching profession is a sort of refuse dump for inefficient children. Not long ago I asked a mother of an elementary school child what she was going to do with her youngest daughter. She replied, "Our Maudie has not been very much good, and we are going to make a teacher of her." That is an attitude that everybody will deplore, and I urge that everything should be done to kill it. When the question of salaries comes up, it should be remembered that salaries are not everything for a teacher. But I was reading the other day some words of that great American novelist G. H. Lorimer, who said:
Money is not everything, but remember that a 10,000 dollar man will stand more work and worry than a 1,000 dollar man. He has 9,000 good reasons for doing so.

Mrs. MANNING: I should like to congratulate my hon. Friends who sit below the Gangway for choosing education for discussion on this Supply Day. I am only sorry that they did not ask for a whole day instead of half a day because I can see that hon. Friends on this side are bursting to give my hon. Friend the Minister of Education that advice for which he has asked. We have a good many experts in the House on education, and I am sure they are only too willing, not so much to criticise the work of the Board, but to help the Board to come to better decisions and to find the nigger in the wood pile, whoever he may be—

Mr. HARRIS: We are willing to go on for the whole day, but I understand that the Government are anxious to get on to an urgent Measure.

Mrs. MANNING: I thought perhaps that the hon. Member's party had not enough speakers. This Vote gives us a great opportunity. It is difficult to get any sort of legislation through this House, and it appears to be quite impossible to get it through another place. Therefore we must squeeze all the goodness we can out of existing legislation through correct administration. This Vote, therefore, gives us an opportunity of suggesting to the right hon. Gentleman some of the ways in which he might squeeze a little more goodness out of the legislation which he already has. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) and I have had a good many conversations on the question of mental deficiency, and we are at least in complete agreement that the best is not being done for the mentally defective child. I shall say a good deal more about this than the hon. Member, because it is a matter of the greatest gravity to this country that the mentally defective child has been completely neglected.
I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary replies he will not deny that, because I have taken the trouble during the last two or three weeks to question the Minister on the subject. I have asked for the number of schools which have been erected for the education of the mentally defective child during the
past few years, and have received the reply that in 1926 the number was five; in 1927, four; in 1928, none; in 1929, four; and in 1930, one. The Minister told me that he realised the difficulties which the local education authorities had in this matter, so I asked him to-day how many local authorities have been turned down. I find that in 1926 one local education authority was turned down; in 1927 no less than eight were turned down; in 1928, two; and in 1929, one. The hon. Gentleman said that in 1930 the Board did not refuse any education authorities. In turning back to his last answer, I found that only one had applied, and that that one had not been refused. That is not good enough in the face of what is a really grave problem.
It is not easy to discriminate the amount of money that is given to special education by this Vote. I find that the increase for special services is £475,000. I am sorry that the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor) is not in her place, because I know that she will be as delighted as I am to see that £375,000 of that will be spent on school medical services and nursery schools. The other £100,000 is for the provision of meals. That means that there is to be nothing spent on the poor unfortunate mentally defective child. I do not know whether the Committee realises the gravity of the situation, what this problem means, and how vital it is to future generations.
The most disquieting report which has been published during recent years is the report of the committee set up by the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) on the position of mental deficiency in this country. I am sorry to say that the Noble Lord was rather a sinner in this respect, because the Wood report was made the excuse why these schools were not opened. When the local authorities went to the Board and asked to be allowed to open these schools, they were told that the Wood Committee was still sitting, and that they must wait until they reported. The reactionary authorities who did not go to the Board excused themselves by saying that the Wood Committee was sitting and that they were waiting to see what the report said. When the report was published, it was seen to be the
most disquieting report which has been published within recent years. What are we told now? My hon. Friend informed me the other day that this requires legislation, and that until legislation has been passed nothing really can be done; everything must hang fire.
It is necessary that hon. Members should have some sort of picture of the position. Do they realise that there are 340,000 mental defectives in this country; that from 1906 to 1929 mental deficiency doubled; that there are 55 per cent. more mentally defective children in rural areas than in urban areas; that the incidence per 1,000 school children in urban areas is 20.7 and in rural areas 39.7? [Interruption.] I am prepared to show that this investigation was carried out very much more thoroughly than could possibly have been the case in 1906. We had one of the most patient investigators of mental deficiency that this country has ever had. The report says that, taking everything into consideration, there cannot be the least doubt that mental deficiency is greatly increasing—

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: How are you going to deal with it?

Mrs. MANNING: I am coming to that. [Interruption.]

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I spoke most courteously.

Mrs. MANNING: But I would rather develop my case in my own way.

Mr. LOVAT-FRASER: I was trying to help the hon. Lady.

Mrs. MANNING: I do not need the hon. Member's help. I can develop my own theme quite easily. I have made a very complete study of this question. There are going to be very drastic measures proposed in the House shortly in regard to mental deficiency, but I want to say that teachers up and down the country feel that there is a patient, hopeful method of dealing with mentally defective children, and that is the educational method. Mental deficiency of the type which we know is best dealt with as a social and not as a pathological question. Of course, I am not dealing with the congenital idiot. We know that congenital idiots are to be found in every class of society—both here and in the other place as well. [HON. MEMBERS:
"Order!"] The grave social problem of the sub-cultural mentally defectives is to be found in the very poorest homes in this country and not in well-to-do homes. The report tells us that 61 per cent. come from homes below the average and 25 per cent. from the poorest slum homes. That is why I say it is a social and not a pathological problem. We find these cases associated with the worst of our social problems—chronic pauperism, habitual crime and illegitimacy. Surely the Minister of a Labour Government, realising that, will say, "We must not wait. We must deal with the question." One school for mentally-defective children per year is not enough; it is a disgrace.
I feel very strongly about this matter because I have taught mentally-defective children, and I know how hopeful a thing it is. I know that you can take a child who appears to be entirely antisocial and by careful, patient methods of education can give that child a place in society. You can help that child to earn its own living, and a child who can earn its own living and who marries and has a decent little family can raise itself socially, and does not sink, as the uneducated mentally-defective child does, who cannot earn a living, does not know how to earn a living, and has a large family of children, even more mentally defective than himself, so increasing the problem. This is not a matter that can be neglected. The right hon. Gentleman has said to me before, "We require legislation." I am going to tell him that if his legislation is on the lines suggested in the Wood report every teacher in this House and in the country will fight it. We do not agree with the recommendations of the Wood report. We believe that administration could give us all the results we want. In view of the gravity of the position, and the fact that these children are a burden in the elementary schools, that they are a drag on the progress of the other children in a class, and that they will become a burden and a drag on the community—and an increasing burden and an increasing drag—I ask the right hon. Gentleman to give this question sympathetic consideration.
I will turn to the children at the other end of the scale, our boys and girls who
have a high intelligence standard, those who ought to go on to get secondary education. [Interruption.] I know the Noble Lord knows what an intelligence test is. I am quite prepared to test his at any time, if he wants me to do it. A great deal has been said this afternoon about reorganisation and the Hadow Report. I like the Hadow Report, and I agree with reorganisation, but I am not in agreement with the hon. Gentleman opposite who thought we could have reorganisation in some places and not in others. I believe in thorough-going, thorough-paced reorganisation; but I was very much touched by what the right hon. Gentleman said about the futility and the tragedy of stratification at the age of 11. I do not believe in the stratification of our children at the age of 11. There are no means of telling at that early and tender age what a child is going to be and I hope the Noble Lord, who has visited the United States of America and has told the House how much he learned in the time he was there, learned the advantages of the multiple-bias school. I wish to commend it. I should like to see my right hon. Friend pressing upon local education authorities the absolute necessity of experimenting with the multiple-bias school. We cannot take a child at the age of 11 and say, "This child is academic," or "This child is commercial," or "This child is practical." It is ridiculous. If the child is put into a school which provides various courses, then if it is found to be taking the wrong course for it, it can be diverted to the right course. The Noble Lord must have seen many junior high schools and senior high schools in the United States of America which were arranged on that plan. There are a few secondary schools in this country which have that system, but, generally speaking, they are not quite large enough.
Another very old trouble is that we have not free secondary education. May I plead with my right hon. Friend to fight those enemies of reaction, whoever they may be, who tell him there is not enough money? He should "go for" the people in the Cabinet who tell him "You cannot have the money." What is he there for? He is the champion of education. Other people scramble for money, and why should not he scramble for money? I
know what I would do if I were in his place. The Ministry would not stand it for more than a few months if I could not get what I wanted. The great thing for which we of this party stand—my right hon. Friend the late President of the Board of Education mentioned it in his letter of resignation—is free secondary education. Answers such as were given to the East Ham education authority will not do, as coming from a party pledged to free secondary education. It does not need legislation to bring it about.
My right hon. Friend gave the best argument in favour of free secondary education when he told us that 29 per cent. of the fee payers in secondary schools were passing examinations and 54 per cent. of the free placers were passing examinations. We have had a lot of talk about anomalies lately, but municipal secondary schools in which fees have to be paid are an anomaly in a State system of education. The children who are paying fees are filling places which could be better filled by children with a greater ability to profit by the teaching which is given. Why should fee-paying children be subsidised to the extent of two-thirds of the cost of their education when we have boys and girls in the elementary schools waiting on the doorstep to push forward into secondary education? The position is a very grave one this year, something has been said about the bulge. With the jump in the birth rate in 1920 there will be hundreds upon hundreds of boys and girls in working-class homes who are 11 years of age this year and who, because our reactionary education authorities will not increase the number of free places, will be disappointed of the scholarships they thought they would get.
It is no good my right hon. Friend telling me that he is sending out circulars. What happens to the circulars? If what he advocates does not suit a local education authority, the circular is pigeon-holed and nothing is done. I know he will say he has raised the free places from 40 to 50 this year. That means nothing. Any local authority could raise its free places from 40 to 50 last year, and the year before, if only it applied for the sanction of the Board. I beg my right hon. Friend to follow up his circulars by demanding of
the local education authorities that they shall do something in this critical year, when so many more boys and girls at the age of 11 are crying out for secondary education. When I was not a Member of this House, but used to sit in the Gallery and listen to the Debates with bated breath, I have heard hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say, "We will do everything for the clever boy and girl; we do not mind how much we spend on them." I do not like to hear it said from this side that we will not spend money. We are dealing with a most valuable asset, and we have got to capitalise it. I do not agree that other boys and girls are not equally valuable.
The burden of this world's work is carried on the shoulders of average boys and girls, and that is why I plead for the multiple-bias school, because I want the average boy to have as good a chance as the boys and girls who can pass examinations. The ability to pass examinations does not mean very much, and I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who believes that the spirit is the thing which is all important in our secondary education, should say that the main object of the secondary school is to enable boys to pass the leaving examination. We shall get the spirit when we get rid of examinations. Examinations are not education. However, I cannot go on in this way, I admit that I am an idealist in these matters, but those are two of the main points on which I want to advise the President. He asked for advice, he said he was willing to take advice, and I ask my right hon. Friend to be guided by me, and to look at the two ends of the scale—at the poor children who are uneducated and neglected because their intelligence is not as high as it might be, and at the bright boys and girls at the other end of the scale for whom a great deal could be done by making secondary education free to all boys and girls. As an hon. Member for one of the Buckinghamshire divisions said, he should see that every child in the country has an equal opportunity of developing the intelligence of which it is possessed.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. ERNEST EVANS: I happened to read in a newspaper yesterday that a Baptist minister had just delivered a ser-
mon lasting 48 hours. It is needless to say that the sermon was not preached in this country, and it is interesting to observe that the report did not say how many people remained at the close of the sermon. The defence for preaching a sermon of that length was that it dealt with the subject: "What is wrong with the Church?" To-day we are dealing with the question of what is right, or wrong, as the case may be, with education, and it may be there are some persons who think that that subject is worthy of an equally long and searching examination. However, I do not propose to emulate the example of the American divine; but there are two or three observations which I should like to address to the President of the Board of Education, whom I congratulate on making his first appearance as head of that important Department. He will forgive me for saying that I think his speech caused some disappointment, and not the least to the real friends of education in this country. The most significant part of his speech was embraced in the sentences towards the end when he talked about the financial perils, and gave a warning that many hopes must be postponed. We have heard that statement for years, and I am wondering whether the present Government, under his administration, are going to do even worse than happened under his predecessor in the previous Government, and under the predecessor of that right hon. Gentleman as well. I appreciate that the position of the President of the Board of Education is a difficult one. He is at the head of a Department which is concerned with a very great number of matters of detailed administration, and to which, if he gives full attention, he must devote a very great part of his time. I wonder if the speech which he made to-day had any reference to a paragraph in the "Schoolmaster" which referred to a deputation from the East Ham authority, which deputation was not received by either the President or the Parliamentary Secretary. I think it is very unfair that a deputation of this importance dealing with the educational policy of this country should be received by a person who is not responsible to the House of Commons when we come to deal with the objects of that deputation. Deputations on policy,
I think, should be received by the President or the Parliamentary Secretary. In connection with this point, this is what appeared in the "Schoolmaster" on 2nd July:
The Government intend to adopt the policy of the abolition of fees, the reason being that the country cannot afford it, and therefore no application from authorities to increase charging fees would be granted.
I am not so much concerned with the general policy which says that the abolition of fees is a matter which the country cannot afford, but I think the Board of Education goes beyond anything it has said before when it declares that:
No application from authorities to increase charging fees would be granted.
Further than that, Mr. Bowles hinted that any increase in free places would involve a decrease in maintenance grants to children under 14. Irrespective of the merits of that policy, it is remarkable that a declaration of that sort should be made to a deputation, not by any Minister responsible to this House, but by an official of the Board—I agree that he is a very responsible and trustworthy official—on a matter of such grave importance. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will explain what is the exact policy in regard to a matter of such tremendous importance. I think we must regard this year as more or less marking time in educational administration. There is no doubt that local education authorities are in great difficulties. They have to prepare their schemes for future policy, and they do not know what is going to happen. They do not know what will happen to the Bill dealing with the raising of the school age. Apart from that, there are money difficulties of an administrative character with which the local education authorities are faced at the present time. One of those difficulties is pointed out in the statistical figures given in the report of the Board of Education which show a reduction in the number of pupils attending the schools. Does that arise out of the reduced birth-rate of the country? The reduction in numbers presents a problem of great difficulty in itself, and it adds to the difficulties of the local education authorities in framing their budgets and policies for the next few years.
While I appreciate that there are many difficulties of a practical character in the way of education authorities at the present time, that does not excuse them, or the Board of Education, from the necessity of proceeding with the preparation of schemes for the future. One of the great arguments which has always been used, and which will always be used, against any proposal to raise the school age is that local education authorities have not had sufficient notice of it. But there is no doubt that some time that policy will be put into operation, perhaps in the course of a few years. One of the main objects of all those concerned in the administration of education is that the local authorities should proceed with their schemes, so that they will be ready to meet the position which I have stated, and when the time comes to put their schemes into operation, they will be ready to do so under conditions which will give them a fair chance of success.
Then there are the wider schemes of reorganisation. I should like to refer to a matter which was mentioned by the President. As far as I understand it, a great many of the present reorganisation schemes are based upon the definite acceptance of the 11-plus age as the area of demarcation between one type of education and the other. For the purpose of securing facilities for secondary schools and other branches of that sort of education, the scholarships are entirely provided for children under the age of 11. I ask the Minister to consider whether it is not possible in all these schemes to give a little more latitude in regard to that matter. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) referred to what was said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) but I do not want to call in the aid of the right hon. Gentleman in this case, because it is well known to everyone that his interest in education is not in the case of a child that developed special abilities before 11 years of age. Up to the age of 11, when a boy or girl qualifies by a special scholarship he or she goes to a senior school, but that boy or girl has no chance of going from that school to a more advanced secondary school which gives a more advanced type of education. I know the 11-plus test has been adopted,
and we know the grounds on which it was adopted. I do not quarrel with that principle as a general rule but I confess that I am not at all sure that part of the argument for the adoption of that figure is not opposed to all our educational history.
What I wish to suggest is that there are several boys and girls who may not qualify before 11 years but who may at 12 or 13 years develop powers which they perhaps did not display before that age, and I think it is important that the Board of Education should keep those rather exceptional cases in mind and make some provision for them. I understand that in London provision is made for this by supplementary scholarships, but the examination is of a very high standard. I ask the President of the Board of Education to examine this matter in order to see whether in reorganisation schemes some provision may be made for the children who may not have shown exceptional ability up to the age of 11 years.
With regard to the large number of pupils in classes, the report of the Board of Education seems to take credit that the number of large classes has been reduced. I would like to ask how far that reduction is actually due to schemes of reorganisation, and how far it is due to the automatic reduction in the numbers attending the schools which has taken place as the result of the reduction in the birth-rate. If it is due to a real and marked improvement on the part of the education authorities, then it is a matter upon which we should be given more information at the present time, when we are talking so much about reorganisation and maintenance grants, improved premises and all the hundred and one different questions of administration. I believe it is one of the most vital things for the education of this country that we should attack this system of very large-sized classes. After all, one of the great tendencies amongst all those who have taken an interest in education in recent years has been in the direction of emphasising the importance of developing the individuality of the pupils and at the same time recognising the variations in their character. If a teacher has a class of, say, 50 or 60 pupils, how can he or she be expected to give the children any individual attention? To those who say that we are not getting full value for the
money spent on education, I reply that one of the safest and surest ways of increasing the value of the money spent on education is to be found in a reduction in the size of the classes, so that the teachers may have the opportunity which they so much desire to develop the individual capacities of the children.
Now I should like to say a word or two about the position of education in Wales. This year represents the 50th anniversary of the publication of what has been described as the educational charter of modern Wales. It is the report of the committee which was presided over by Lord Aberdare in that period. That report drew attention to the inadequacy of the education provided at that time, and it supplied the foundations for the new facilities which have since been created in the fostering of a new outlook in Wales in regard to the possibility of dealing with the educational life of the country. It may interest the Committee, if I tell them that, in the course of the 50 years since the publication of that report, very remarkable changes have taken place. It is true that in the case of the elementary schools development has proceeded more or less on what I might call normal lines, but, as regards secondary education, while in 1881, when this report was published, there were 1,800 pupils receiving education of a secondary character in Wales, to-day there are over 40,000. As regards higher education, in 1881 there was only one college, with 50 students. That college had been established about nine years earlier, with 25 students; it conquered difficulties of an unexampled character, through the unparalleled determination and devotion of its friends and supporters; and it has now developed into the University, consisting of four colleges, with 3,000 full-time students—a university which claims to be a national university, and which bases that claim, not merely on territorial and geographical considerations, but on the services which it is rendering to the nation to which it belongs, and on its increasing association with the life of the people of that country.
These are two or three illustrations out of many that I might cite of the very remarkable development which has taken place in the 50 years which have passed
since the publication of this report. We take pride in the fact that it shows, not merely an increase in the educational facilities which now obtain in Wales, but much more—it shows the increasing appreciation of those facilities by the people for whom they were intended. These are some of the encouraging features which we Welsh people take to heart when we are reviewing the last 50 years at this convenient moment.
All the features of our educational system are not quite so encouraging. There are other matters which require attention. No one who knows the schools in a great many rural districts of Wales can have failed to appreciate the fact that many of the premises are unsatisfactory, are insufficient, and in a large number of cases are absolutely insanitary, and that they do not provide those facilities for play and the amenities of school life to which the President of the Board of Education referred in his speech when he spoke of the remarkable development which has taken place in the elementary and secondary schools of our country. We have had in the last few years several reports dealing with matters affecting educational activities in Wales. My plea to the President, and, if I may say so without disrespect to him, more particularly to the Parliamentary Secretary, who knows a great deal about these things from his own personal experience and from his membership of the same nationality, is that some of these recommendations, which vary in interest and importance, should not be regarded as the prerogatives of the pigeon-holes of the Board of Education, but should be put into operation as the privileges of the people who desire to see them in operation.
There are many very devoted servants of education in Wales who are anxious to see developments on certain lines, but, before I mention those lines, I should like to make a reference of a personal character—not personal to myself, but to someone else. It is a well recognised Rule of the House, I understand, that we are not allowed to criticise a civil servant. I do not know whether the Rules prevent us from paying a compliment to a civil servant when he deserves it, but if they do not, I should like to
pay my personal tribute—and in doing so I know that I am speaking on behalf of a very large number of the people of Wales—to the services of Sir Percy Watkins, the head of the Welsh Department of the Board of Education. He has given great guidance to local education authorities, and has been an inspiration to a great deal of educational activity of the very best type in Wales within recent years. There are certain things which I know are very dear to his heart, and I would venture to appeal to the Board of Education to encourage him in the development of those ideas.
We are proud of our educational system; we think there is a good deal to be said for it; but we think it can be developed still further. There are people in Wales who are very anxious to see our schools, elementary and secondary, as well as our University, giving greater opportunities to their students and pupils in the direction of art, music, Welsh history, and the Welsh language. These are things on which we feel very keenly, not merely as a matter of narrow pride, but because people who are devoted to them believe that a great achievement can be accomplished for the future of Wales by the encouragement of the Welsh character and the development of the Welsh culture. We hold that belief because we know that the principle of nationality, when it is properly understood, can be the instrument of the spirit, not of boastfulness in ourselves, but the spirit of service to ourselves, to our neighbours, and to the world.

Lord E. PERCY: In the first place, I should like to add my word to those of the President of the Board with regard to the late Sir Aubrey Symonds. I could not express better than the right hon. Gentleman has expressed it the debt which education owes to that great civil servant, but I should like to add this: It was commonly supposed by many people, and is commonly supposed by many to-day, that, because he had not served at the Board of Education, his services after he came there were of a purely administrative character, and that he was not an expert or very much interested in education itself; but no teacher who met Sir Aubrey Symonds on those occasions, which interested him more than any of the rest of the work of the Board, when he visited the short
courses for teachers at Oxford and Cambridge in the summer, would ever make that mistake. In him the Board has lost, not only a very statesmanlike administrator and sound adviser, but a man who would have left increasingly, in the next five years, his mark on education itself and on educational ideas in this country.
In the next place, I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and to welcome him on the first occasion on which he has stood at that Box as President of the Board of Education, and also, if I may be so impertinent, to give him a word of advice. It is this: Let him not fall into the fatal error, into which I think both his immediate predecessors have fallen, of getting lost in what I may call the purely housemaid's work of the Board of Education. During the last six or seven years we have had Debate after Debate on these Education Estimates, and they have all ranged round things like the size of classes, black-listed schools, and so on. These matters are of immense importance, but, after all, they, and the reorganisation of the break at II, are administrative matters which have been decided, and can now run on their own account with a minimum of administrative pushing. They are no longer the important things. They go on from year to year without showing much change—[Interruption]—I mean without showing much change in the rate of progress. In the last two years there were 2,000 fewer classes with more than 50 children, which is rather less than the average rate of reduction in the preceding five years, because, of course, the nearer you get to the bone the more difficult it is to reduce still further.
These things, however, are not the important things. The important thing at the present moment is that, having made our schools better equipped, better housed, better staffed, better organised and standardised, and better examined, we are increasingly running the risk that we shall wake up and find that into these empty halls we have no educational ideals and standards to put. The outstanding fact of the present day is that in every country the best authorities will tell you that education in its true sense is deteriorating. Whether you ask a Scotsman, an American, a Frenchman, or even a German, they will all, except perhaps a Russian or an Italian, tell you that the
standards of education are no longer what they were. I hope that the President of the Board of Education, who has had a life of university teaching will show himself to be a president who devotes his attention above all to these questions. There were certain gleams of that point of view coming from his speech.
Let us frankly admit that there is nothing more depressing or exasperating than the steady resistance to new ideas shown by every educational reformer. We have had two instances of it to-day. I said in my last speech on the Estimates when I was in office that there were only two questions of administrative policy which were not yet decided, and on which this country had not a policy, namely, those of nursery schools and of the mentally deficient child. Apparently, we have made no great progress during the last two years towards having a policy on either of those question, but they have both been the subject of very interesting reports. In the case of the nursery schools, a very interesting consideration of the subject was included by Sir George Newman in his annual report, I think for 1928, in which, in diplomatic terms, he expressed his view that nursery schools were really a blind alley, that they could not meet the problem, and that there must be a wider policy, combining the nursery school idea with the health centre idea, if any serious inroad was to be made upon the problems which face us. Nursery schools have been mentioned to-day, but that aspect of the matter has not been mentioned at all.
Then the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning), who, I am sorry to say, has now left the Committee, rather naively attacked the President of the Board of Education for not having a policy on the subject of mental deficients, and quoted the Wood Report, with its startling revelations. She then informed the right hon. Gentleman that, if he presumed to carry out the recommendations of the Wood Report, he would be fought by every teacher in the country. I am afraid that that was rather letting the cat out of the bag. The world of education has not yet got a policy about mental deficiency, because it is faced with a very authoritative report stating that the old policy of segregation is in some respects a bad policy,
at any rate an inadequate policy, and that, if you are going to tackle this problem on the scale on which you must tackle it, you must get away more or less from this idea of segregation, except for the most deficient children, and develop on other lines. The teaching profession as represented by the National Union of Teachers has set its face, I understand, against that recommendation. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) that it is high time that the Board did have a policy in spite of the National Union of Teachers on that question. I give those as instances of the difficulty of getting educational progress out of the groove of certain old ideas. Educational reform is far too much an affair of pushing a little further along the groove of old ideas.
I come back to the fundamental question of standards of education. What has been happening? In the old days, 60 years ago, when the system of compulsory education was started, we had a clear educational idea for the elementary schools, the idea of the three R's—the theory of grounding and grinding in the three R's. That may seem a very tame and reactionary idea to many at present, but remember what it accomplished. Remember that there are men who habitually sit on the Front Government Bench whose skilful use of classical English, better than many better educated men, is a testimony to the kind of teaching that they got in the elementary school. It may have been a narrow ideal, but it was an ideal, and because it was an ideal strongly held as a standard, it has accomplished its work. Then there was the standard of our higher education, especially in Scotland, a standard of severe mental braining, a sharpening of the mind, on perhaps rather a narrow-range of subjects, but a sharpening of the mind on the ancient languages, and on the study of philosophy. It was a mental training as such, and we all know how very sadly education in Scotland to-day compares with that ideal. That, again, may have been the ideal for too few people. It may have been too selective. But it was an ideal. It was a standard and, therefore, it accomplished great things. It accomplished this, that in-
tellectually the Scotch led the world for a century.
Again, you have the ideal and the standard that you find in Germany or Holland to-day. It is all very well for the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris) to talk about Germany's expenditure on technical education, but if you compare the fine product of the German secondary school, and technical high school, you find a very highly trained technician who is also at home in at least two foreign languages. What comparable accomplishment to that do you find in the best technicians turned out by the engineering departments, say, of our universities? There it may be overweighting again. I think it is. But we in England have always, in business and elsewhere, leant rather to the academic, and there is nothing more remarkable to-day than the resistance of many of our leading and most progressive business men to any idea of making university training anything but an academic training, an insistence on the idea that it does not matter for the purpose of the future requirements of business what a man takes his degree in as long as he takes a fairly good degree.
I am not deciding between those two ideas. I am pointing out that it is an absolute waste of time to go on talking about the arrangement of your schools, the internal economy of your schools and the buildings and the teaching and so on, unless you have an ideal of what you want to produce, and you must have a standard of the highest education. It is useless to have a standard for any education lower than that. I agree with the President of the Board—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury—we want to think of the average child, the rural child and so on. But the lesson of all education is that your advice and your guidance to the normal child is a derivative of your educational ideal for the ablest child who is going to rise highest on the educational ladder. Unless you have that, you will not have a sufficient ideal to give the more practical education that your average student needs.
Let me bring this down to a practical question. The President of the Board has spoken of State scholarships. He has said that his predecessor increased State
scholarships from 200 to 300 a year. That is a proposal which wag before me, which I did not carry out, though I might have carried it out in my last year of office, and I do not criticise it at all. But a mere multiplication of State scholarships ignores entirely the very real and very damaging criticism that may be made upon the whole system not only of State scholarships but of university scholarships supported out of public funds. I am sure the President of the Board will agree that the fact that a certain percentage of State scholars have taken first-class honours is not in itself a demonstration of the success of the system, unless you have a far more touching belief in the standards of honours examinations of universities than, I am afraid, I have.
The whole question of honours degree examinations is another of the things that urgently need looking into, as every progressive teacher in a university will agree. But almost every university teacher who is dealing with these scholars, whether State scholars or scholars holding a local authority scholarship, or teachers under a four years' course of training in university training Departments, will tell you that a scholarship being given not by the college or university itself, the amount of it not being controlled by the academic institution in which the student is getting his examination, but being provided by the Board of Education or a local authority completely outside, tends to a system of means limits, income limits, a maximum amount which the student may draw from all sources, and a limiting of the conditions of tenure of the scholarship, especially in the case of teachers. I give two actual instances. Take the maintenance allowance granted to a teacher in training. That is subject to the condition, not I think legally enforceable, that the student shall teach in a grant-earning school, and there are very many of your best and ablest men who go to a university on those conditions who come to doubt whether teaching is, after all, their metier, but, holding the scholarship on this condition, they must go on. You may out of that system simply get a bad teacher and lose a real leader in some other profession.
Then take the ordinary State scholarship or local authority scholarship. In
order to control them, we have built up a system, with the universities, of scales and limits and maxima, so that an undergraduate studying history for a history degree may have one maximum, and a student who is studying for a science degree a slightly higher one, because the science student has to get apparatus. But no one thinks that the history student may need to buy books and, that for the student who has grown up in surroundings where he has never owned a book of his own, the one essential thing at the university is to get into the habit of owning books. I came to this clear conclusion about this summit of the educational ladder represented by scholarships, that you would have no satisfactory system, you would not get the best men from your secondary schools into the university, and you would not get the best out of them at the university, until you put the administration of these scholarship funds to a far greater extent than at present in the hands of the universities themselves to distribute according to their judgment and according to the needs of the students under their charge, undertaking, if you will, in return, so far as teachers are concerned, to turn out a certain minimum number of teachers with their diploma every year. I was in negotiation with the universities on that subject in the last two years that I was in office. Only one Vice-Chancellor of one university opposed the idea. All the others were, I think, very keen on going further with it. [Interruption.] No one opposite need indulge in the sneer that the universities were going to get money out of it, because they were not.

Mr. EDE: We never impute motives, though I suspect many things.

Lord E. PERCY: That idea, however, ran underground. I give that as an Instance of what I feel very strongly that the weakness and danger are that we do not care enough about what education really is. We have got away from the old and rather narrow ideas about the three R's and the training for a livelihood and so on. We have left the old idea of a training based upon languages, whether modern or ancient. We are sploshing about with what the right hon. Gentleman calls the school-leaving examination. That examination enshrines in itself the sploshy, indeterminate, halting-between-
two-opinions atmosphere of the whole of our higher education. These are the things which the Board of Education ought to be considering, and not all these administrative details. The President of the Board of Education is the supreme education authority in this country or, shall I say, the supreme focus of education in this country. I know how the hon. Gentleman feels, but I would ask this Committee to approach these and future Estimates far more in the spirit of asking what is the aim and standard behind all this paraphernalia of schools, and far less as to whether there are 10 or 20 fewer, or more, classes containing over 50 children.
I will conclude with one more practical point. Education at the present moment is very much more expensive than it was two years ago. It is, I think, some £6,000,000 more expensive, as judged by the Estimates. I know that the annual Estimates are a bad guide in this respect, and that you can under-estimate or overestimate slightly the amount of grants that you will pay to local authorities within the financial year. I rather underestimated, and therefore left to my successor a certain amount of arrears of grant to pay up. But even so, the increase in these Estimates is greater than can be accounted for by any of the facts which have been put before this Committee either in print or by word of mouth this evening. A net increase of 1,200 teachers, even allowing for the fact that that means 3,000 extra certificated teachers and 1,800 less supplementary and uncertificated teachers, does not account for much more than £600,000 a year, upon which a grant of 60 per cent. would be £360,000. All the expenditure upon building schools during the last four or five years, even if they had all come into bearing, so to speak, in the last two years, would not in the loan charges account for more than perhaps £1,800,000 or £2,000,000 at the outside. I should think that it is very much less than that, taking into account old loan charges on old school buildings that were falling in.
The disturbing thing about these Estimates is that a very large part of the increase in educational costs consist of a million little trickles at various points. It has always been the case, and I know
how difficult it is when you are trying to estimate and control in some small measure the expenditure of over 300 local authorities. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the first step towards that attitude of cautious economy which he foreshadowed in his speech is to devote a great deal more attention to accounting for the actual reasons for the growth in educational expenditure during the last five years. It must be reduced to some clear outline if we are to be able to judge how far we can carry even such a policy as the policy of reorganising the schools. I would seriously press that point upon the right hon. Gentleman.
I have dealt with rather broader things for the most part, but I would ask the Committee to remember that popular education is a great ideal, though only if you are sure that you are not asking more and more people to come and drink at a stagnant pool. The supremely important question before us is, How are we to keep our educational ideals alive in the secondary school and in the technical school, and in that multiple-bias school of which the hon. Lady the Member for East Islington spoke? It can only in this country, if she will consider it, be built up round the technical school, and cannot be evolved out of the present secondary school.

Dr. HASTINGS: Like most of the Members who have so far spoken, I do not want to level any general criticism against the work of the Board of Education. I desire rather to bring forward certain specific and perhaps minor details in regard to which I think that improvements could be carried out. I will begin with the State scholarships of which the Noble Lord was speaking just before he sat down. I cannot agree with him that it is a disaster that 52 per cent. of these scholars obtained first class honours.

Lord E. PERCY: I did not say that.

Dr. HASTINGS: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I cannot agree with his suggestion that this fact, at any rate, has to be criticised. I think that it is a very desirable thing that such a stage of education has been attained by individuals who, almost certainly without these scholarships would not have had the advantage of a university education. But I am more concerned with what
happens to these scholars when their university career has finished. I should like the President of the Board of Education to inquire as to what walks of life they enter after they leave their university. I cannot help feeling that most of them will go into the teaching, secretarial and perhaps journalistic and similar professions, but I should like to see these scholarships made a port of entry not only for certain vocations but made applicable to all.
A month or two ago I asked a question in the House as to whether these scholarships would enable individuals to obtain degrees which would entitle them to practise in some of the other professions. I specifically asked about medicine and dentistry, and I was informed that as these scholarships were only tenable for a maximum of four years it was not possible for scholars to obtain such qualifications. I look upon it as a great disaster that certain professions can only be recruited from certain classes. Six out of seven children in this country go to the elementary schools. There is, as far as I know, no maintenance scholarship to allow such children to become members of the medical or dental professions. Elementary school children can get to the secondary schools by the help of scholarships and they can then reach the universities. I suggest to the President of the Board of Education that it would indeed be a useful thing if some of these scholarships were made tenable, so that boys and girls who desired it and who appeared to be suitable could be enabled to enter not only a few professions, but all professions for which they might show ability.
I wish to say a few words about the school medical service. I know of the excellent work that this service is doing in some places, but I feel that it is a service which has to deal too much with treatment and too little with the prevention of diseases. For the most part the school medical officers seem to me like the grocer in a village store who sorts over the oranges from time to time and picks out the bad ones and puts them aside. I do not think that sufficient care is taken by the school medical officers to prevent diseases, although they are very busy in curing
them. It is well known that inspection is carried out very differently in different parts. I asked the hon. Gentleman some time ago what was the amount of time that was taken on the average by a school medical officer in inspection of each pupil, and I was told that it was only six minutes. That seems to be a very short time.
I wish to criticise especially what is being done with regard to the dental treatment of scholars in the elementary schools of this country. I looked up the last report of the Board, and I found that last year there were eight local educational authorities that had made no provision at all for the dental treatment of their scholars. I also found according to the same official report that less than one-third of those in need of dental treatment received it. I cannot help feeling that this is a disaster. In some places, although the dentists tell us that teeth should be inspected every year, in the years in which medical inspection takes place, the dental inspection is generally omitted. I know that I should be out of order if I attempted to criticise the statutory provision that necessitates the making a charge to parents for medical and dental treatment of scholars, but I feel that the Board should see to it that the charge is not made a deterrent. I understand that in some places a higher charge is made for the stopping of teeth than is made for their extraction. That has a tendency, I think hon. Members will agree, to induce parents of scholars to be more ready to have their children's teeth extracted than to have them stopped and therefore saved.
7.0 p.m.
I said a moment ago that I was mainly criticising the school medical service because it did not, in my opinion, sufficiently go in for the prevention of disease. That is not altogether the fault of the Board, because when the school medical officers were appointed instructions were served out to them and they were requested to provide an annual review of the hygienic conditions of the schools and also of the way in which hygiene was taught. With regard to the first point, I have by me the report for 1929 of the largest educational authority in this country and practically the only thing I
can find about the hygiene of the schools are plans and details of four new open-air schools. This is the report of the Medical Officer of the Board of Education for the London County Council.
I should like to turn to the second and equally important point—the question of how hygiene is taught in the schools. I feel very strongly that it is important that there should be a great deal more teaching of hygiene in the schools than there is at present. I know the Board will agree with me in this because they have issued a very useful syllabus, "The Hygiene of Food and Drink," dealing with the effects of alcohol and other questions, and also a "Handbook of Suggestions on Health Education." They direct that instruction in hygiene should be given in the schools at least once a week right throughout the child's school life. An inquiry was made the year before last by the medical officers of the Board as to how much teaching actually took place in certain sample schools, and I should like to give some figures on this point. In the secondary boys' schools there was no systematic health teaching in 84 per cent. of schools. Girls' schools were a little bit better. In the senior boys' schools there was no systematic health teaching in 31 per cent. of the schools. I feel quite sure that everyone will agree how important it is that children should have definite health teaching in the schools. The hon. Gentlemen opposite have been telling us that we are spending a good deal of money in changing the environment of the people, and that much money is being spent on housing and medical work and so on. I think they will agree with me that it is a very good thing, indeed, to teach people, and especially to teach the children, how to maintain their health, and how to make the very best use even of things as they are. I should like to suggest to the Board of Education that it would be a very good thing if health teaching could be made a definite school subject.
There is just one more subject I should like to mention before I sit down, and that is the question of the school records. I know that in some schools at any rate very careful records are kept concerning
medical history of the children attending these schools. What becomes of those records? Are they kept, and is any practical use made of them? I feel that use might be made of them by having them passed on to the insurance committees so that they might be of value to the children after they leave school. One's medical history is naturally very difficult to remember. Most of us in this chamber could probably give the date on which we were returned to the House of Commons or the date on which we were married and we could give some details of each of these events, but if we had to pass an examination on the date on which we had measles, mumps, or influenza, or to give details of such illnesses as we have had, we should find it very difficult indeed. Moreover, the details that we should provide might not be strictly correct from a medical point of view. I feel very strongly that it would be a very valuable thing for the health of the people if a continuous medical record could be kept.
We know also that in medical research we are needing to get more accurate knowledge of the very beginnings of a disease, and such records would be of value here also. Some local education authorities have applied to the Board of Education and have asked for permission to transfer the medical records of the children to the insurance committees when they leave school at the age of 14, so that they may be passed on to the children's panel doctors when they reach the age of 16. Unfortunately the Board has refused. I cannot help feeling that this is a very short-sighted policy. If the Board needs the records copies could be sent to the insurance committee instead. These records would be retained by the panel doctor with the records of the individual in an envelope such as I have in my hand. They would be confidential as all such records are. I am sure that is going to help the individual concerned in the future to have a complete and careful record of his medical history. Therefore, I ask the Board to reconsider its decision, and I am sure it will never regret having done so. I am afraid I have dealt in a desultary fashion with a good many minor points, but my excuse is that the President of the Board of
Education asked far suggestions and so I have given them.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Morgan Jones): I understand that an arrangement has already been arrived at between the parties that this discussion in regard to English education should come to an end at half-past seven so that our Scottish friends may be able to raise points in regard to Scottish education. I regret, therefore, that our discussion must at this point be brief. In the course of the Debate this afternoon a number of interesting points have been raised to each of which I should have liked to give some more time, but unfortunately the time is somewhat short and so I hope the Committee will excuse me if I apply myself to the main points raised. I am glad to acknowledge that the discussion has been conducted in a helpful spirit. There have been criticisms, it is perfectly true, but in the main there have been no severe adverse criticisms. Some little regret has been expressed on one point or another but, generally speaking, the Debate has been complimentary to the work of the Board.
I will take the subjects in the order in which my right hon. Friend took them in his opening speech on the Estimates and I will begin therefore by making reference to the criticism in regard to nursery schools which was contained in the speech of my hon. Friend who opened' the Debate on behalf of the Liberal party, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. Harris). He seemed to entertain the idea that there was ground for some disappointment in connection with the story which my right hon. Friend had to unfold concerning the development of nursery schools in the country. All I can say is that it may very well be from the hon. Member's point of view an inadequate story but from my point of view I think we need not be ashamed of the fact that in the course of two years we have increased the number of actual, approved and prospective nursery schools from something like 28 to the modest figure, as the hon. Member called it, of 100. That is progress which is not at all unsatisfactory. I heartily agree with him, of course, when he says he would like to see many more such schools, but in the
time which we have had at our disposal in the last two years I think progress has been fairly substantial.
I turn now to the subject which has occasioned a good deal of criticism from the opposite side, as well as from some of my hon. Friends behind me, namely, the question of provision for the mentally deficient children in the country generally. Nobody, of course, with any heart at all would wish to be understood to imply that the provision which is now made for this class of child is adequate as things stand. I heartily agree that the facilities provided for these most unfortunate children ought to be expanded as early as possible but in the course of the discussion some rather severe observations fell from the hon. Member for East Islington (Mrs. Manning). I think we ought to look at this question with a due sense of proportion. The hon. Member directed attention to the fact that over a certain number of years 1926–7–8–9, there was what she would regard as being virtual stagnation. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord E. Percy) will agree that the committee which he appointed sat from 1925 to 1929, or thereabouts, and the view held by the Board between those years was that while this committee was examining the question they did not feel they could embark on a very vast development until they knew what the findings of this committee would be in regard to this most difficult and important problem. In due time the committee reported.
I think my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington is under a misapprehension in regard to one simple point. It is not strictly true to say that only one scheme has been approved. As a matter of fact there have been several since January, 1929. That however is a small point and the question which is really at issue is what is the real impediment to a substantial development of this service. Perhaps I may put it something like this. The committee which examined this question came to the general conclusion that it was not at all an easy matter—indeed one might put it more strongly—to apply the law completely as it now stands. The law lays it as a duty on local education authorities that they should make provision for mentally deficient children, but if you look at the distribution of this most un-
fortunate defect amongst children you will find that it is more present amongst the rural population than it is amongst the urban. Anyone will realise that when you are discussing this problem in relation to the larger urban areas it is a comparatively simple job for them to provide special schools for the children under their administration, but that when you come to consider it in relation to rural areas you are up against a rather more difficult and challenging proposition.
To maintain a residential special school costs something like £90 per place; and that is a pretty stiff undertaking. It is perfectly clear that if you are going to insist upon special schools of a residential character—and they must be residential in character if you are going to provide for children spread over a very large rural area—it is going to be a costly proposition. There is another difficulty connected with this problem, and that is the power of a local authority over these children. It may be a regrettable and unfortunate thing, but it is quite understandable, that the parents of these children are indisposed and reluctant to let them go to schools of a residential character, and in law you have no power to compel them to go. Therefore, when we consider this proposition we really must have regard to the limitation of the law as it now stands. The Mental Deficiency Committee which sat from 1925 to 1929 visualised this problem in relation to the probability of the raising of the school age to 15. That is a point which the Noble Lord will not accept, but I think they viewed it in that relationship, and their idea was that it might be possible so to readjust the law that you might deal with a larger number of children, not only those who are of low mentality, but also the children who are very backward, dull or not as alert as the normal child. How can you, by the way, describe these children? There are infinite gradations and varieties of conditions. If you are going to have rural special schools for dealing with them, the schools will be inappropriate and inadequate, I would almost say not worth while, unless they are large enough to allow for satisfactory classification and organisation.
Those were the points which my right hon. Friend had in mind when he said that if you follow out the ideas of the Mental Deficiency Committee and transfer some of these children to some type of special school, but still in association with ordinary elementary schools, there would have to be a change in the school leaving age. If these schools are to be part of the elementary school system there will have to be a change in the law if you are to be allowed to retain the children up to the age of 15.
On the general question as to whether it is wise or unwise to accept the general conclusions of the committee, I admit that there is room for profound differences of opinion. After all, it is a problem in regard to which there is a place for a genuine divergence of view, and for my part I agree to some extent, but not fully, with the Noble Lord that in this matter we ought not to be too hidebound as to what should or should not be done concerning these children. I hope this will be accepted as an indication of the attitude of the Board of Education. As regards the desirability of expanding the provision I am heartily in agreement with my hon. Friends.
Let me say a word on the question of reorganisation. This matter has been discussed so much in this House during the last 12 months that I do not feel called upon to enter into an elaborate examination of the problem. All I will say, all I need say, is this, that we are not perhaps as mad as we seem to be on this question. I am heartily in favour of the application of reorganisation to the whole of the country. There will be no "pockets" left unexamined and un-reorganised. I want the whole educational system to be so completely changed that all children from the age of 11 or thereabouts shall pass from the primary form of instruction to some more complete form of post-primary instruction, and apropos of what the hon. Member for the Welsh Universities (Mr. Evans) has said, I must say—and I speak for the Board in this matter—that I should feel grievously disappointed with the results of reorganisation if there is not in that system more adequate provision for the development of interests and tastes, whether musical or artistic. We must recognise, whether we are teachers or
administrators, that the one thing which is obvious is the infinite variety of gifts you find in a class of children.
I pass over the point mentioned by the hon. Member for Reading (Dr. Hastings) in regard to earmarking State Scholarships for students who are intending to go in for a certain profession. It would be a great mistake to begin to earmark State Scholarships in that way. I would rather leave it to the individual State Scholar himself to determine what particular walk of life he may ultimately enter, without earmarking these scholarships for this profession or for that.
I turn to a subject which has been ventilated a good deal on all sides of the Committee in regard to secondary education, and particularly the question of free secondary education. I would like to remind my hon. Friends who have quoted "Labour and the Nation" to me of what "Labour and the Nation" did in fact say. It is true that there is a paragraph in "Labour and the Nation," the programme of the Labour party, under the heading, "Secondary Education for All"—and I yield to no one in my loyalty and fidelity to the principle embodied in that phrase—in which there is this statement:
If returned to power it will use every effort to accelerate the process of carrying it into effect.
I submit that no case can be made out to support the charge that this Government is not proceeding upon the lines of providing as early as possible secondary education for all, and as free as possible. What are the facts in regard to our activities in connection with secondary education? When we came into office 40 per cent. of free places were allowed, but on account of the incidence of the "bulge" and other considerations we have authorised local education authorities to raise that percentage from 40 to 50, and in addition we have told them that if on account of the exigencies of their own problems in their own areas they feel that they have a case upon which they can confidently approach the Board of Education in favour of increasing the 50 per cent. to, say, 60 per cent. or to 70 per cent. we do not taboo it. On the contrary, we say that we will consider every application on its merits. What happened in regard to East Ham? The hon. Member for the Welsh Universi-
ties seemed to imply that there had been something improper in the way that deputation was received. I have made inquiries and I do not understand that the local education authority made any application to be received by the President of the Board or myself. They did not stipulate for it and, therefore, we took it as a part of the ordinary routine of the Board's administration.
But what, in fact, happened in this case? A large number of erroneous reports have appeared in the Press. As a matter of fact, there is only one point of conflict between the East Ham authority and ourselves, and it is this. The East Ham authority wanted to abolish all fees, the Board of Education wanted to abolish fees for all those whose parents could not afford to pay. That is the simple point of difference between the East Ham authority and ourselves. It is the difference between saying free secondary education for all, and free secondary education for all those who cannot afford to pay the fees. The Board is quite willing, and has expressed itself to that effect, to entertain applications from authorities who feel that they want to abolish fees in respect of children whose parents cannot afford to pay them, but we do not feel at the moment that we can entertain the proposal for the abolition of fees in respect of children whose parents can afford to pay. That is a difference, which I think will be clear to the whole Committee.

Mr. E. EVANS: That is the policy of the Board at the moment?

Mr. JONES: Yes, on the way towards free secondary education for all. But another allegation has been made which is absolutely without foundation. The suggestion has been made that in the interview between the Board's official and the East Ham authority the Board insisted, on its own volition, that there should be an alteration of the condition of affairs in reference to maintenance allowances. In fact that proposition was not raised by the Board at all. Here is a passage from the letter of the East Ham authority:
The authority further propose that the abolition of fees for the admission of East Ham pupils to secondary schools shall be accompanied by a modification of the existing arrangements for the payment of maintenance allowances so as to provide that, as from 1st September, 1931, maintenance
allowances be not paid in respect of the attendance of secondary school pupils under 14 years of age.
My whole point is that the question of the abolition of fees and of the retention of maintenance allowances in respect of children below 14, was not raised by us at all, but was raised by the East Ham authority. It was they who suggested it. It is fair to the Board that that point should be made abundantly clear.

Mr. COVE: Did the Board endorse the application of East Ham?

Mr. JONES: Certainly.

Mr. COVE: Did the Board agree, even if it is accepted that East Ham put forward the proposition? Did the Board accept the policy of taking away the maintenance grant?

Mr. JONES: The whole point raised has been that the Board has imposed something on the East Ham authority. The truth is that the approach came from the East Ham authority. Granted that the East Ham authority made this application to us, I am asked did we approve or did we not? I say, Yes, we did. All I am concerned with at the moment is to show that the allegation referred to is entirely unfounded so far as the Board is concerned.
I think I have covered the main points raised by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, with the exception of the Noble Lord the Member for Hastings. I think he will agree that I may be excused from discussing to-night the points which he made, because, as he himself frankly admitted, the points were mainly academic in character. They were none the less interesting points, and points on which I should like to have a controversy with him at some more convenient date. But to-night I hope he will excuse me and not think me discourteous. I understand that there is a firm understanding that this discussion should come to an end at 7.30. I thank hon. Members for the kindness with which they have received the Estimates of the English Board of Education, and I hope that our fortunes in the case of Scotland will be equally good.

Mr. MORLEY: The Noble Lord the Member for Hastings (Lord E. Percy) made a very interesting and provocative
speech, a speech which contained rather sweeping assertions which the latter portion of the speech did not substantiate and which I imagine he would find it very difficult to substantiate at any time. The Noble Lord said that our educational standards had deteriorated. If our standards have deteriorated, a portion of the blame for that deterioration must be thrown on the shoulders of the Noble Lord, seeing that he was in charge of the educational system for the years 1924 to 1929. But I would ask him in what respect have our educational standards deteriorated during the last year? Has the standard of attainment of the children in our schools, according to their age, deteriorated in the last few years? I have had experience as a class teacher continuously, until I entered this House, in an elementary school for a period of nearly 30 years, and I say emphatically that so far from there having been any deterioration in the standard of attainment of children in our elementary schools, age for age during the past 30 years there has been a very considerable advancement in that standard of attainment at any particular age which the Noble Lord might like to pick. The children of the age of 14 in the leaving classes in our elementary schools to-day have a much wider range of knowledge and of interests, and in many subjects have a deeper knowledge, than they had 25 to 30 years ago. There is no justification whatever for the statement that there has been any deterioration, so far as standards of attainment are concerned.
Does the Noble Lord mean that there has been any deterioration in the standard of conduct and behaviour of children? I think he would find it very difficult indeed to bring any proof that would back up that assertion. The Noble Lord went on to say that we must make up our minds what we consider should be the aim and end of education. I say definitely that I consider the end of education should be the production of a nation of cultured men and women, a nation of men and women with sufficiently wide culture to fit them to be the ruling citizens in a State which has for its basis a democratic constitution.
I would like to make a few remarks upon the statement made by the President of the Board of Education in intro-
ducing the Estimates. We have heard a good deal about reorganisation, but it does not appear as if reorganisation is progressing with any remarkable rapidity, for up to the present moment only 15.6 of the children over the age of 11 are in senior schools. Only one-fifth of the whole, school population have been reorganised into senior and junior schools. What those of us who are interested in education are particularly anxious to know is, how far has the reorganisation during the past two or three years been a reorganisation in fact or a reorganisation in nomenclature only? How far do these new senior schools approximate to the conditions laid down by the Hadow Committee? It was the express aim of the Hadow Committee that the new senior schools should give to the children education of a secondary character. You cannot give education of a secondary character unless you have amenities of a secondary type. How far do these new senior schools contain those secondary amenities? How many of the new senior schools contain, so far as equipment, staffing and playing fields are concerned, amenities of a standard which is approximately of a secondary character? Unless these things are given, it will be impossible to carry out the aim of the Hadow Committee.
I would like the President of the Board of Education, in any communications that he may make to the local authorities during the forthcoming year, to urge upon them the necessity for equipping these new senior schools so that as far as possible education of a secondary type may be given within them. At the present time there is very often what I might almost call a disgraceful discrimination on the part of local education authorities between their treatment of the secondary schools and their treatment of the elementary schools. Very often the secondary school has only to ask for things in order to get them. Secondary schools ask for additional teachers, additional books or additional apparatus, and these things are freely granted, but if any additional expenditure is demanded for improving the equipment or the amenities of the elementary school, every item of suggested expenditure is jealously scrutinised and more often than not it is vetoed by the local education authority.
I would like the Board of Education to do what is possible, through administration, to level up the conditions between the existing secondary schools and the new senior schools which it is now establishing under the various local education authorities.
I want to raise a matter which has been raised before. It is a matter of great importance and I do not apologise for referring to it. It is a matter which constitutes perhaps the greatest blot on our educational system. I refer to the continued prevalence of large classes in the elementary schools. I speak with considerable feeling, because for nearly 30 years I was a class teacher in various types of elementary schools, and during that time I had classes which varied from 50 to 65 pupils. I know what are the educational drawbacks inherent in large classes. At the present time, according to statistics given in the report of the Board of Education, there are 10,000 classes with over 50 children each, and 50,000 classes with over 40 children. So that out of the 5,500,000 children who are being educated in our public elementary schools, there must be a total approaching 3,000,000 who are being educated in classes containing more than 40 children.
Of course it is easy for the layman to see what are some of the drawbacks of these large classes. It is easy to see that with a large class there is eye strain and ear strain upon the children. There is also far more danger of contagion from infectious disease. It is much more difficult for the teacher to give attention to the individual child, and, more especially, the larger the class the greater proportion there will be of heterogeneity of educable capacity. But those are not the main drawbacks to education in our system of large classes. The large class makes it impossible for the teacher to adopt an up-to-date technique of teaching. It is nowadays the practice wherever possible to have free discipline in our schools. The psycho-analysts tell us that undue repression in early childhood will lead to the development of various types of neurosis in later years, but it is practically impossible to have a system of free discipline in a class which exceeds 40. In a class which exceeds 40 on the
roll the class teacher is inevitably thrown back upon the old methods of repressive discipline which were in vogue in nearly all our schools some years ago. Then again, the modern idea of education is that the child shall learn through self-activity. The old practice was to treat the child as a sort of receptacle into which knowledge was poured by the class teacher. To-day we believe that the child should learn through the process of self-activity, but it is almost impossible to adopt that method of education in a class which exceeds 40, and class teachers with these large classes are inevitably thrown back upon obsolete methods of pedagogy.
I regard this question of the reduction in the size of classes as the most important administrative matter which awaits the attention of the Board at the present time. Surely the present is a time when it would not be too difficult to secure a considerable reduction in the size of classes. In the past two objections have been urged to a reduction in the size of classes. One has been that the school buildings do not lend themselves to smaller classes; that the classrooms in many schools were originally built for classes of 60, and that it is difficult, with the existing accommodation, to reduce the classes to 40 or under. From my own experience, I think it much better to have two teachers, each with a class of 30, in a room designed for 60 pupils—perhaps with a curtain or partition dividing the classes—than to have one teacher in that room with a class of 60 children. I admit that the question of accommodation is difficult, but the difficulty can be overcome by a little thought and planning on the part of teachers and local education authorities if they have the assistance and encouragement of the Board.
It has also been argued in the past that we could not secure any considerable reduction in the size of classes because we had not enough teachers. During the past two years, however, the training colleges were encouraged to take additional entrants in the hope and belief that the school leaving age would be raised this year or early next year. That reform, unfortunately, appears to be postponed for the present, and there is a likelihood of a surplus of teachers
coming out of the colleges this July. The Board and the local education authorities could very well use that surplus in order to secure a considerable reduction in the size of classes throughout the country. I ask the Board not to be content merely with urging local authorities to increase their staffs and reduce their classes. I suggest that they should follow up any memoranda that may be issued on the subject, with even more peremptory demands and constant application, so as to put pressure on the local authorities to employ fully these teachers, many of whom if the classes are not reduced, will find themselves without employment. There is one other matter of some importance, and that is the quality of the teaching staffs throughout the country. I am pleased to see that there is, year by year, a gradual improvement in the quality of the teaching staffs. The number of teachers in our elementary schools who are graduates has increased in the last seven years from 3 per cent. to 8 per cent.

Mr. EDE: Does my hon. Friend think that the graduate teacher is a better teacher than the non-graduate teacher?

Mr. MORLEY: It is not because I think that the graduate is necessarily a better teacher than the non-graduate. The teachers' certificate demands just as high a standard of qualification and attainment as the pass degree of many universities, but the teachers' certificate has not the same prestige in the public mind as a university degree. Therefore, from the point of view of improving the general prestige of education it is advisable to encourage the graduation of a greater number of our teachers. I do not wish, however, to deal particularly with that point, but to refer more generally to the large number of unqualified teachers still employed in our public elementary schools. The statistics furnished in the Board's report show that last year there were 124,000 certificated teachers, but the number of uncertificated teachers was 31,000 and of supplementary teachers over 7,000, so that out of the total number employed in our public elementary schools 25 per cent. are still only partially qualified or not qualified at all. I do not think that there is any other profession in which unqualified and partially qualified practitioners
are allowed, and I suggest that an effort should be made to put an end to the system of allowing unqualified or partially qualified people to teach in our publicly owned schools.
It is difficult now for the uncertificated teacher to become certificated—more difficult than it was—because the acting teachers' certificate has been abolished. I would suggest, however, that in the case of younger uncertificated teachers, those who are, say, under the age of 30 years, local authorities might be encouraged, perhaps with some help from the Board, to give loans to those teachers in order to help them to proceed to college and obtain their full certificates. As regards the older uncertificated teachers, who have had fairly long periods of service, say 10, 15 or 20 years, and have by long practice become fairly competent teachers, I suggest that where favourable reports are presented by His Majesty's inspectors, those uncertificated teachers of long experience might be granted certificates, and then after a certain period the Board should say that no more uncertificated teachers would be allowed to practise in our schools.
I also ask the right hon. Gentleman if it is possible for him to bring some pressure to bear upon local education authorities to end what appears to be the stupid ban upon the employment of married women teachers. I do not see why a woman teacher should be forced to resign when she enters into marriage. It seems absurd to make it compulsory for the good teacher to become a bad cook, and it is against the interests of education that the married teacher should not continue to teach. Other things being equal, I should say that the woman who has had experience of marriage and motherhood makes a better teacher than the woman who had not that experience. Further, it seems against the interests of the State to put this bar upon women teachers being married. I think it may be said with truth that, taken as a class, women teachers are among the best-educated women in the community and it is not in the national interest to put a bar upon them becoming mothers. I suggest that the President ought to bring pressure to bear upon local education authorities to remove the bar which exists at present preventing women from
continuing to exercise the profession of teaching, after marriage. I wish to express my thanks to the President for the lucid statement with which he introduced the Estimates, and to say that it is the wish of all of us that he will have a happy and successful period of office.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PUBLIC EDUCATION, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £4,832,026, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1932, for Public Education in Scotland, and for the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh, including sundry Grants-in-Aid."—[NOTE: £2,750,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. EDE: On a point of Order. I understand that Scotland is allowed eleven-eightieths of the money allowed to England for these services. Is there any procedure whereby we can secure that Scotland shall also have only eleven-eightieths of the Parliamentary time devoted to these matters? During the past 48 hours we seem to have devoted about eighty-elevenths of the available time to Scotland, thanks to the activities of Scottish Members.

Mr. GEORGE HARDIE: Further on that point of Order. May I ask whether it is not a fact that, if Scottish affairs in the House of Commons were given a larger proportion of the time, it would tend to raise the standard of intelligence?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico): Neither question is one within the jurisdiction of the Chair. The allocation of time is determined by the Committee itself and not by the Chair.

8.0 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): I wish to present briefly to the Committee the main features of the Estimate in respect of public education in Scotland. The net total asked for is £7,582,000 which is an increase of £384,000 on last year's figures, or, roughly 5 per cent. When we come to analyse the elements which contribute to this result we find some very interesting facts. As hon. Members know, about 98 per
cent. of the amount in the Estimate is determined automatically through the operation of the 11–80ths arrangement, and the portion of the Estimate for which I am directly responsible amounts only to about £146,000. When we turn to that part of the Estimate we find not increases but decreases. The total of £146,000 falls under three main heads namely administration, inspection and the service of the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. I shall give the position in round figures. The sum required for administration in respect of offices in London and Edinburgh is £59,000, which is a decrease on last year of £2,500. The sum for inspection is £61,000 and is down this year by £2,000. The sum for the Royal Scottish Museum is £26,000, and is down this year by £600. These reductions are due in the main to the decline in the bonus on salaries for the cost of living. The number of staff is practically stationary. It is interesting to note that the number of the administrative and inspecting staff is practically the same as it was in 1922, and is actually less than it was in 1914. All this shows that in these difficult times we continue to have due regard to reasonable economy in administration, though I want to say quite frankly that education is one of our national services on which we cannot afford to economise too rigidly.
We have now completed the end of the first year of the administration of education in Scotland under the new conditions brought about by the 1929 Government of Scotland Act. It comforts me to know that about 42 per cent. of the members of the education authorities throughout Scotland are drawn from the old education authorities, so that, in the difficult times of change to new conditions, we secure continuity of experience and tradition. I earnestly hope that the new authorities for education will carry on their important duties as effectively as did the old education authorities, but it will naturally take some time until they are able to fit into the new machine.
The number of scholars on the registers of the schools amounts to 818,000. That is 1,500 less than last year and is lower than any of the last 10 years, with the exception of 1925 when the figure
amounted to only 813,000. The present figure reflects at the upper end of the school the reduced birth-rate of the War years and at the lower the falling birth-rate of the last nine years. The "bulge" due to the exceptional birth-rate of 1919–20 is now found in the 10 to 11 age group, and has, therefore, still three or four years to go before it passes out of the primary schools. Education authorities have to study the course of the birth-rate in order to plan for their future requirements on a reasonable basis. In this connection, I may quote some rather remarkable figures which were given in the Report of the Department recently published and which have been available to Members in all parts of the House. In the five years just before the War the annual number of births in Scotland amounted to about 122,000. The corresponding figure has now fallen to 92,000; a reduction of nearly 25 par cent. The number of teachers employed is higher than it has ever been. It amounts this year to 27,840 as against 27,250 last year and 25,200 in 1924. I am more than pleased to be able to call attention to this increase, but we must not forget that there is still room for a reduction in the size of classes. The present upper limit of 50 pupils habitually under the charge of one teacher is only a resting place on the way to a further goal, and I hope that a further reduction will be effected when circumstances permit.
The question of the reduction of classes reminds me of my own experience as a school boy in a mining village many years ago. Perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I tell them about it. I was one in a single room containing 100 pupils or thereabouts. We had only one teacher—a very heroic woman, I can assure the Committee. We were not a class of about the same age or the same level of attainment. We were of all ages, ranging from four to 11 years, and of all degrees of ability. Looking back in after life on the experience that I then had, it has strongly impressed me with the need for classes being cut down to a manageable size, so that teacher and child may get the full benefit of the opportunity that the country has pro-vided for them.
The building activity to which I referred last year has been well maintained
throughout 1930. During the year loans in excess of £1,000,000 were sanctioned for the improvement of the existing schools or the erection of new ones. That represents a most gratifying improvement in the material conditions under which our children are being instructed. As I go about the country, I am constantly struck with the steady advance of our schools in comfort, in amenity, and in convenience. The rooms are brighter, lighter and more airy, the sites are more extensive, there are more spaces for playground and playing fields. Not all our schools are of the standard that one would like to see. Some of those that I have seen myself—and I take whatever opportunity avails me of seeing what our schools are like in the various parts of Scotland—are defective in more than one respect. Numbers of the schools built in the seventies and the eighties, some of them built even later, fall far short of modern standards. We have a long way to go yet before we have provided the perfect school for our Scottish children, but our inspectors are aware of the facts, and the worst schools are being steadily superseded. I am hopeful that our new education authorities will continue to do their duty in this most important matter.
I now want to turn for a short time to some more purely educational problems. In last year's Debate on these Estimates a good deal was said about simplifying the curriculum and adapting it more closely to the capacities and interests of the average child. That is the greatest problem that confronts educationists, not only in Scotland, but elsewhere; and it is not a new one. More than 30 years ago we saw clearly that we had to get away from the cast-iron system more or less enforced by the earlier codes, and very wisely we began with the youngest children. The infant departments were the first to get freedom from the dead hand of bureaucratic control, and everyone who knows anything of these matters is satisfied that they have made excellent use of their opportunity. The process of emancipation from the external domination of the curriculum has spread upwards through the junior and senior divisions. Our teachers have now freedom to shape their courses to suit the children. They may now stress those elements of school life which do not lend themselves to statistical assess-
ment by means of written examination. I refer to such things as intelligence, manners, conduct, physical training.
The actual content of the various subjects in the primary school has been under exhaustive review during the past year, and all the inspectors in Scotland have been invited to give their views on the lightening of the ship. I hope soon to be able to issue a circular on the whole question, and I am confident that it will indicate various way in which the curriculum may be made more practical and sensible. We have no intention, in making these changes, of encouraging slackness in any shape or form. We are as eager as we ever were for thorough workmanship, but we want to remove a certain amount of material which is of no practical value and is of very little educational value either. In particular, we aim at securing a more interesting and a more useful course of study for the not inconsiderable proportion of our scholars for whom the pace hitherto set has been rather too fast. In one form or another the qualifying examination at or about the age of 12 has been a feature of our educational organisation for about 30 years. It was introduced about 1903, for financial, not education reasons. Higher grants were paid for scholars who were in supplementary courses or higher grade and secondary schools, and a bar had to be set up. When the grant system was changed about 10 years ago, that bar was no longer needed. The Department, accordingly, gave up the qualifying examination and the process of transference from the primary to the post-primary school was left to the authorities.
Now we feel that we may take another step. This examination, it is generally felt, is open to many objections. There is no doubt that it has put too severe a strain on teachers and on pupils. It does not test the whole of the manifest activities of the school—far from it. It keeps a certain number of pupils grinding away at uncongenial tasks, instead of giving them the opportunity of finding salvation through the more attractive and more varied courses of the post-primary school. It is surely possible for the teachers themselves to arrange the transference at this critical stage of a child's career. I should just say that for entry on a secondary course of an academic type it is essential that there should be
some guarantee of fitness for that particular type of work, for everyone is aware that in Scotland and many other countries the secondary schools are clogged with pupils who would be happier and who would make better progress in schools that gave more scope for practical activities. Whether the guarantee can be secured without a written examination of the usual kind is a question which it would be unwise for me to debate at this juncture.
We hope, then, to effect the "clean cut," as it is called, with all possible despatch, but with due regard to the circumstances of the various education areas. All children will proceed to a post-primary school, there to receive a post-primary course at 12—some of them before 12, for we must do all that we can for the child of exceptional ability. That done, suitable courses must be provided and due account must be taken of the great variety of human gifts, interests and capacities. This is not a new problem. It has been in our minds more or less since 1903, when the supplementary courses were instituted, and more definitely since 1923. In that year advanced divisions providing a variety of courses for scholars between 12 and 14, and in some cases 15, were instituted. They were devised with definite reference to the ultimate raising of the school age. They supplied a framework into which we could easily fit the curricula when the statutory age is raised to 15, as it will be some day.
Pending that event, I would ask all concerned, education authorities, teachers, parents, pupils, to do all that they can to raise the age voluntarily. Only in this way can children at present receive full advantage from these advanced division courses which have been set up. One cannot but deplore the waste which so often occurs when the pupils, starting well on a three-year course, have to break off, either because of the economic conditions of the home or for any other reason. In the eight years that have elapsed since 1923 great progress has been made in the establishment of these advanced division courses, both those of two years and those of three years. The material equipment has increased greatly. Up and down the
country new schools, admirably housed and equipped, have sprung into being, and others are being built. The teachers have been forthcoming, and the courses have developed in scope, variety and interest.
But here again the dead hand of the past is to be seen and felt. Too many of these courses are of the old academic type. Too many of the candidates for the day school certificate are studying languages, to the neglect of subjects for which they have more ability and which will be of more use to them in after life. We have spoken of this subject in general terms for many years. We have discussed it again and again on our Scottish Education Estimates. Now we are taking it up in detail, district by district, and we have asked our inspectors to use their best endeavours to secure more varied and suitable instruction in the advanced division centres throughout our land. In some counties, the fondness for academic subjects for all and sundry is specially marked, but a different spirit is abroad, and we will do all that we can to encourage it. In the secondary schools themselves the same spirit is moving. By a contemplated change of the regulations we hope to introduce greater variety into our leaving certificate courses. Music, art, domestic subjects, applied science, domestic crafts will receive the attention which they have been too long denied.
That, in brief, is the trend of our policy. I claim that it indicates a healthy stirring of the waters as far as education is concerned. I shall be gravely misunderstood if it is taken to indicate any serious fault or flaw in our Scottish educational system, but we must not be complacent. If we are to hold the place among the nations that we have held in the past, the place that I believe every Scottish Member would like to see us hold in the future, we must constantly criticise and modify our educational system so as to meet the calls of our changing civilisation. That way, and that way only, lies safety and lies progress.

Mr. COWAN: The Committee has had from the Secretary of State for Scotland a more than usually interesting
pronouncement. With regard to the first part, the statistics given were interesting, but they had little bearing on education per se. It must have been a great pleasure to hon. Members to listen to the enunciation of so many sound educational principles as the right hon. Gentleman made in the latter part of his speech. We have always known the Secretary of State to be keen on this subject, and the difficulties which he had to face, and which he so well surmounted in his earlier years, have given him an understanding of the work inside the schools that perhaps comparatively few administrators have had the opportunity of gaining. There is little to criticise in the work of the Education Department during the past year. The year has been more a year of beginnings than a year of achievement; that is to say, the ordinary routine of the schools has gone on, but in the matter of administration we have come under a new regime.
We have had a period of transfer from the old ad hoc bodies to the municipal or county council bodies. It is well known that, when the Act of 1929 was going through, there was a very marked division of opinion as to whether it was a wise step or not. Some of us took one side and some another, and it is still a matter of opinion. It must always be beyond argument, however, because these new bodies are now in operation. It is too early to give any considered judgment as to whether the change is for the better. I believe that it has great potentialities, if they are taken advantage of, but no matter what may be the character of the local authorities, the Education Department, as representing Parliament, must see that in no district in Scotland is any child penalised by any weakness in the local authority. It is the duty of the Department through its officers to see that no child is penalised. I am a little afraid that they are not always exercising such powers as they possess.
There are far too many unsatisfactory schools in Scotland. The Secretary of State, in speaking of the size of the classes, said that the present figure was only a resting place. I wonder how much longer he is to allow it to remain there. It has been there quite a long time, and, unless there are special circumstances where, owing to difficulties of accommoda-
tion, it is impossible to reduce classes, no class should be allowed to have more than 45 or 50 on the register under the care of one teacher. I have said that it was a year of beginnings; they have been very promising beginnings, and I should like to pay tribute to the great service rendered by the Secretary to the Department in making public pronouncements adumbrating policy which has been fresh and stimulating, and has caused administrators and teachers everywhere to try and re-value the work that they are doing. The Secretary of State in the latter part of his speech gave us an indication of what the policy of the Department is to be. He trounced the examination system as expressed in the qualifying examination, and, as a Scotsman, I listened to that part of the speech with particular pleasure, because it seemed to me that a good part of the argument of the President of the Board of Education this afternoon was devoted to supporting the claims of examinations.
Examinations of one kind or another have become a fetish in nearly all schools, and it is time we were getting away from them. It may not be possible to depart from all kinds of examinations, but certainly the stereotyped examination, universal for the whole country and all pupils, is a thing of the past. It was brought into being in the old days of payment by results; you had to get so much work done, and so much of it was appraised and so much paid for. Those times are past. As the Secretary of State has said, there is now a new spirit moving right through education. We have to re-value what we have done and to get an idea of what we are seeking to achieve. I believe that the policy of the Scottish Education Department is becoming more and more a practical one, and is aiming at sound citizenship, sound mentally and physically.
Our schools have gone about as far as they can with the children of tender years in the kind of book instruction that they get, and I feel that very much more should be done on the physical side of education. It is pitiful to see children in our large schools, and many of the children in our country schools, growing up with infirmities or weaknesses of physique that might well be cured, and I hope that medical inspection and treatment will be carried very much further
than it has been hitherto. The Department has shown its sympathy with the provision of playing fields, and that is a movement which is all to the good. One of the most educative influences is that gained through organised games. It is impossible for the children in our city schools to have games organised unless there is proper provision of playing grounds. That is one of the reasons why we are glad to have municipal bodies in control of our public parks and open spaces, so that they may be in charge of the children and enable them to take full advantage of the facilities at their disposal.
It is well known that in anticipation of the age being raised, larger numbers of teachers were admitted into training colleges than were required. That has given rise to a very serious position. We have now well over 1,000 teachers in Scotland who have completed their course and for whom there is no prospect of employment. For that the Government are largely responsible. With regard to the raising of the school age, I should like to put a direct question to my right hon. Friend; I am sure that he will give it sympathetic consideration and, through the Under-Secretary, a direct reply. Legislation is necessary for raising the school age in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland has simply to name the day. I would like to ask him whether he has discussed in a friendly way with the Treasury the possibility of getting some money for Scotland outwith this 11–80ths, seeing that Scotland is ready to use the money. We ought not to have to wait in Scotland, as we are waiting, for the settlement of religious difficulties in England which have nothing to do with education. My right hon. Friend should not be content to let things go on as they are in the matter of the financial arrangements of the two countries. In view of the great need there is for raising the school age, he ought to discuss with those in authority whether there are not some means by which. Scotland could get this great reform carried through without having to wait for the rest of the country. As others are wishing to speak I will not take up more time, but will only say that the speech of the Secretary of State will,
I am sure, give as much pleasure throughout the country as it has given in the House to-night.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Like the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) I should like to say to the Secretary of State for Scotland that I listened to his speech with much interest, particularly to that part of it in which he gave some of his own childhood's recollections. They brought before us as nothing else could have done the extent of the progress made in education in Scotland in the last—well, I will not venture to say how many years. I also read with great pleasure more than one pronouncement in the report of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. The first statement, of which there was an echo in his speech this evening, concerned the smoothness with which the change over has been made from the old education authorities to the new education authorities, and I was glad to note that the right hon. Gentleman feels that the good proportion of members of the old authorities who are on the new ones will ensure a continuity of policy. I was also pleased to see the stress that was laid upon the improved prospects of health organisation from the fact that one local authority will now deal with the health both of school children and children of pre-school age. That is clearly pointed out, but it is remarked that that is still not the case with regard to the large burghs in the counties. Otherwise, there is now complete unification of this service throughout Scotland, and that should bring great progress in health matters.
I also read with satisfaction of the increase there has been in the number of pupils attending continuation classes, particularly in the type of continuation classes which lasts for no fewer than four years. Everyone who has thought about education must realise that one of the best things it can do for anybody is to send him away from school asking for more, and there can be no better test that young people are asking for more than that they should go back to evening classes on some nights of the week, after a day's work, and continue their attendances over so long a period as four years. It shows keenness and perseverance in pursuing a course, and it speaks very well for the teaching given in those classes. May I also say that I read with consider-
able satisfaction that the Department has been able to arrange for the granting of a Scottish national certificate in plumbing? I had occasion, a few years ago, when presiding over a Departmental Committee, to realise the high standing enjoyed by these national certificates in various industries; and the fact that our young men will be able to take a national certificate in this very important trade should help to raise the standard of skill. Now I come to the very important pronouncement that the control examination is to be abolished.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Westwood): The qualifying examination.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Well, I do not know that the word very much matters. It is the examination at the same stage, and to very much the same effect. I will confess to the right hon. Gentleman that 11 years ago I was a member of a committee that arranged an examination of that kind when the Department dropped the examination they had formerly carried on. At that time I felt very anxious to have some test by which to measure the progress in primary schools. It has been borne in on me since then what a great variety of ability develops in children as they reach the adolescent age, and that if justice is to be done to that variety of ability we must have a variety of courses at the stage of adolescence. If we have this barrier in front of every child in the lower school—in the senior school as we call it in Scotland—which it has to pass before it can get into the post-primary department, it means that children who are not very good at their books but who may have practical forms of ability, and therefore most need to get into the post-primary schools, may be debarred from doing so, and may spend the whole of the last years of their life at school struggling in vain to pass an examination hold entirely in book subjects.
I feel very strongly with the right hon. Gentleman the need for a more effective variety of courses at the adolescent stage. If one puts aside the question of the health of the small children, it is, to my mind, the greatest need of Scottish education—to have a much clearer recognition of that great variety of
ability which is one of the fundamental things, one of the greatest things in human nature. It is one of the most wonderful things that every human-being has got his own particular type of ability, and therefore there will be many children to whom no real justice will be done unless we provide a reasonable measure of variety at the adolescent stage, which is when variety of ability begins most to show. I am very glad to hear the stress which the right hon. Gentleman has placed on the need for more practical instruction in the advanced division courses. I read with considerable concern of what is said on that subject in the report, much of which he repeated in his speech to-day, namely, that the courses taken for the higher day certificate which carries a child over three years up to 15 is still too purely academic in character. There is a considerable amount of handwork in the two years' course, but the children entering for the three years' course seem to be doing entirely academic work. That was not the original purpose of those courses. They were intended as an alternative to the purely secondary course. Therefore, I welcome the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that practical work is to be encouraged in secondary schools.
I have heard, however, with satisfaction the announcement that there will be an examination for entrance to the secondary school. It would be a disaster to education if we let down the standard of the secondary schools. There is great danger of that standard falling, and of admission to those schools becoming too easy. There is not now an effective entrance examination, and the Secretary of State for Scotland will do a real service if, when he makes a "clean cut" at 12 years of age, he makes it clear that there must be some effective test for what is a difficult curriculum to ensure a really good standard. I think those interested in this matter should help parents to realise the value of these varied courses.
The secondary school course is something which has come down to us from the middle ages, and it was the only type of education available until a few years ago. This may have been a very suitable type of education for those going into the learned professions, but it, is too narrow to cover the needs of the children
of the country. We must help parents in Scotland to take an interest in education, and we shall not foster that interest unless we provide instruction in some one subject in which they feel that their children can do well. For this reason we must provide practical instruction for the children whose abilities are more of the practical than the literary type. The right hon. Gentleman will do a very great service to Scottish education if he will help parents to realise that something much broader and more varied is required than we have looked for in the past.
I pass now to the question of the teachers. I was pleased to see in the report that there are now more handicraft teachers than we had formerly. We have been rather deficient in the past in that respect. I was also very glad to know that some of the teachers who have not been able to get full employment have been able to take some shorter courses in practical teaching. I do not think there is any wiser step which teachers could take in the circumstances. It means the acquisition by them of a particular kind of skill which is very much needed in schools, and therefore such teachers it means do a real service to Scottish education, and give us hope that it will include more practical instruction in future than in the past.
The question of surplus teachers is a very serious one, and one which must cause us concern. I was pleased to note in the report of the national committee that they are asking the authorities to keep the teachers in the colleges for three years, or else allow them to remain at school another year before proceeding to the training colleges. I hope that appeal will be liberally responded to, although I am not sure that it will be sufficient to meet the difficulties. The national committee discussed the possibility of restricting for a period entrance to the training colleges, but they seemed to fear that that could not be done without some injustice. I should like to remind the Secretary of State for Scotland that a step in that direction was taken in England and Wales 10 years ago when financial difficulties showed themselves, and I think that restriction lasted for some three years. I do not think that that restriction led to any great injus-
tice, or at any rate I have never heard it stated that it did. I feel that the national committee would be wise to face that problem in the near future. The national committee state that they have sent out warnings to local authorities on this question, but the result only indicates how much those warnings have been disregarded. If the national committee would definitely restrict the numbers for the next year it might help the local authorities to realise better that it is not wise in a time like this to help as large a number of young people as usual into the teaching profession. I agree with the report that the action mainly rests with the local authorities, but it may be difficult for the local authorities to realise the position unless the national committee take some fairly definite action.
There is a further consideration. Warnings should be sent to young people about entering the teaching profession at an early age. There is, of course, a preliminary period in training, and it seems to me that advice ought to be given to young people and to their parents before the students embark upon that preliminary training. When, however, I make that suggestion, I find myself faced by the fact that in some secondary schools very little guidance, if any, seems to be given to young people as to the careers on which it will be wise for them to embark. I remember that the Salvesen Committee some years ago asked that a special committee, consisting of representatives of the Ministry of Labour, the education authorities, and employers and employed, should be set up in the four large cities of Scotland to advise children about careers when leaving secondary schools. The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have a great many secondary schools in areas where there are very few openings for young people on leaving those schools. Therefore there is a need that their parents should have advice as to the prospects which are open to them in different occupations. I believe that for lack of guidance of that kind young people go as a matter of course from our secondary schools into the teaching profession, and I do not think it is fair to the young people or to their parents, particularly those who live in rural districts, to leave them without guidance in this matter. Of course, the right hon.
Gentleman may say that this is more a matter for his colleague the Minister of Labour than for himself, but I am sure he cannot fail to take a deep interest in the question of the placing in employment of young people leaving our secondary schools, and, since consultation of that kind should precede the entry into preliminary training of pupils in secondary schools, it seems to me to be a matter within his jurisdiction, and I should like to suggest that he might discuss the matter with his colleague, in order to see if young people in the secondary schools in Scotland, not only before leaving school but before they might possibly take up a course of that kind, cannot be given more guidance than they sometimes get at present.
Turning to the question of restriction of teachers entering the training colleges, I should like to ask if it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to remind the National Committee, if they take any restrictive step, of the great importance of ensuring a sufficient supply of teachers trained for infant work. As we all know, the tendency has been, during the last 10 years, for more and more students to enter the teaching profession through the universities. That ought to mean a rising standard of general education and academic attainments among our teachers, but we cannot expect that students will receive at the universities the specialised training which is necessary for infant work. There is a special technique for that matter, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and it cannot be acquired at the university. I would ask that that matter be kept carefully in view, because we cannot afford to leave ourselves without efficiently trained teachers for that very difficult and special work of teaching children when they first enter the schools. I do not want to detain the Committee any longer, but I would say once more how interested I am to hear of the pronouncement with regard to the removal of the examination at 11 or 12, and how much I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able, through the instruction that he has sent out to his inspectors, to ensure that there is that wider provision of alternative courses at the post-primary stage which is so necessary if education is really to call out and develop the infinitely varied capabilities of the children in our schools.

Mr. G. HARDIE: When we began to discuss the subject of Scottish education, the question was raised by an English Member as to the proportion of time that we were entitled to for this Debate. I would like to draw attention to one outstanding feature of this Scottish Debate, and that is the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Pollok (Sir J. Gilmour), the hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), who in recent times have not been slow to comment on the absence of Ministers on this side when they have been engaged elsewhere. I hope that those Members to whom I have referred may read in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow the remarks that I am now making, because I think that some explanation is called for as to whether or not they have engagements elsewhere which compel them to be absent.
9.0 p.m.
The hon. Lady who has just addressed the Committee always interests me when she speaks on education, because you get there the point of view of one who has never been through the conditions which she is trying to apply to others. When I was a member of a school board, as it was then called, I was always interested in people, especially ladies, who were always wanting to be able to lay down conditions on a class of which they had never had the slightest experience. It is much like an examination such as a doctor might make to detect some lice on the body of a dog—

Sir PATRICK FORD: Withdraw! That is offensive.

Mr. HARDIE: That has always been the attitude that brings that kind of relation. For instance, we had from the hon. Lady three things to show that that is the case—

Sir P. FORD: On a point of Order. Is an hon. Member really in order in making provocative remarks of that kind, and casting aspersions on the acts of people who are trying to do their best in the interests of education?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understood the hon. Member's reference to be to persons outside this House, and I fear my powers do not extend so far as to rule the expression out of order.

Mr. HARDIE: I was making no reference to the hon. Lady, but to the doctor who does that kind of thing to find out a disease. He has not understood it, and examines—

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You are talking about a veterinary surgeon.

Mr. HARDIE: He is a dog doctor. The hon. Lady was giving warnings. The first was that people who were intending to take up the education necessary to enable them to be teachers should be warned now that they might not get a job; and the second was that parents who were ready to take advantage of these educational facilities for their children should also be warned. The third was a warning in regard to the spending of time and money on education at all. What I am getting down to is this, that it is evidence that the hon. Lady does not consider education for itself; that is what was meant by her statement.

Duchess of ATHOLL: I really must protest against the hon. Gentleman twisting what I think was my very obvious meaning. I was dealing with unemployed teachers, and was saying that we knew that there was a considerable number of unemployed teachers in England, and that we should try to avoid adding to their number. I have had many letters from unemployed teachers asking me if I could help them to find jobs, and I wanted to avoid others having to go through what some unemployed teachers are suffering.

Mr. HARDIE: What else could they go into? So far as work is concerned, every profession is full. Is education to be stopped because it happens at the moment that you cannot reduce the size of the classes? If the classes were of the size that they ought to be for efficient teaching, there would not be a surplus of teachers. The hon. Lady knows that perfectly well. If knowledge is to be imparted on a proper basis under the control of the teacher, you cannot have a class of the size that you have to-day, because no teacher, however efficient, can, with the distractions entailed by a large class, give that form of education that he can impart when he has a small class. The reports show the result of the size of the classes. If you follow
the life of a teacher of the same subject, tracing his career from one school to another, and compare it with the size of his classes, you find that, just as the numbers in his class are reduced, so his efficiency is increased.

Duchess of ATHOLL: Surely, the hon. Member realises that usually the size of the classes is conditioned by the number of class rooms in the school?

Mr. HARDIE: Just as a cheese-box takes the number of cheeses that it is built to contain. It follows that, if you are to have smaller classes, you must have more accommodation; I should have thought that that would have been understood. The question of the size of classes must be faced if education is to be put on a proper basis. The President of the Board of Education himself gave a picture of what was taking place from the nursery school upwards, and said that things were going to develop and there was going to be a tremendous production of a new kind of article, so to speak. That may be so, but what I want is some provision for a continuation of that mental activity. What is the use of going on to a certain distance and then coming to an end? It is that continuation that I am fighting for so far as education is concerned. If we were a sane nation, we should see that we got a return for every penny that we spent on education. It seems the quintessence of stupidity to see money spent on making people teachers and to deny them the right of expressing the power that they have to the children.

Sir P. FORD: I do not want to make any unnecessary interruption, but I should like to ask the hon. Member, when he is talking about the numbers of teachers and the buildings, whether he does not realise that it is a matter of mathematics, and that, according to the number of children in existence to-day, there will be a decided shortage in a year or two as compared with what we have, and that we are simply asking that you should not speed up until it is necessary to do so. I should like an answer to that question.

Mr. HARDIE: I can give an answer quite plainly. What I say of the majority of the schools to-day is that they are finished. That is the answer to the last part of the question. As to the
first part, it never pays any nation to stay its hand in any education for any excuse.

Sir P. FORD: It is perfectly impossible.

Mr. HARDIE: No, it is not. If we were in a country where we were short of materials and of men, it would be impossible. But we have them. We want a national law to express that of which I have been speaking. All that results, surely, from examinations. Examinations are not fair things. I have never known an examination yet to be a fair thing for the individual. They can only be fair if you have sitting on your benches to be examined exactly the same quality and type of mind and temperament. I have watched examinations going on in various things. You can always tell by actual contact and study the type of individual who is not disturbed and who can get through on paper, and who can stand up and get through on oral, while a better man gets left. Examination never proves to me that you have found what is called the beet of your class. I have had some personal experience. I have had under my control bachelors of science and people with other degrees in science and engineering. One came with a gold medal and wondered why I did not get excited about it. A fortnight later they gave him a free ticket back. There was nothing wrong with him. He was fitted for the things that he was mentally suited for. He could pass any kind of examination. He could suck it up like a sponge. That shows that you cannot measure by examination. The President of the Board of Education to-day had to accept this view of what was going to take place. I hope it can take place. The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) was taking a very gingerly attitude in regard to the change from the ad hoc authorities to the town councils.

Mr. COWAN: I am always very cautious.

Mr. HARDIE: The first people to be able to realise the fact that it has not been a success have been the teachers. The hon. Member said that it had only been working for a short period and that we ought to wait a little longer. I can tell him now what I told him when the
Act was going through the House, that it will not be a success. He knows in his heart that it cannot be a success. The people whom he represents know that it is not, and can never be, a success. If they had been fighting for real education instead of advantage to a class, they would not have fought for taking elementary education outside an ad hoc body.

Mr. SCOTT: We have had an interesting statement from the Secretary of State. He spoke of the healthy stirring of the waters in education. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary whether I am correct in believing that there has been an increase in the cost of education during the past two years of roughly £1,500,000. The Secretary of State for Scotland referred to certain decreases in expenditure, but there is upon the Estimate a proposed increase of £384,604 and I shall be glad if, when he replies, the Under-Secretary of State will tell us the purpose of that additional expenditure. The sum in the Estimates before the Committee at the moment is £7,197,422, but that is not the total expenditure on education in Scotland. The, total expenditure upon education is about £12,000,000. That is, roughly, the sum which education in Scotland is costing. I should like the hon. Gentleman, if he can, to tell us what proportion of this money is represented by contributions from Government grants, from rates and from local sources other than rates. We have some reason to complain of the apathy and want of interest in education. Our Scottish education would have greatly improved beyond what it is at present if there had been more interest shown among the parents to see what kind of education their children were getting and whether they were getting the kind of education they required. I might also add that one would like to see greater interest taken in Scottish education among members of all parties in this Committee. Education is the basic industry of all industries, and unless we see that it is on right lines, it will have a repercussion upon every sphere of our industrial life.
Who has the supervision of education in Scotland? We were told in the House recently that there were four persons who through their official position comprised the main part of the Council of Education in Scotland—the Lord President of
the Council, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the vice-president, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Lord Advocate, and I understand that Lord Craigmyle has been a member since 1920. That is a council which has not the slightest executive control over, or interest in, our Scottish education. It has been judically decided, I have been told—and I do not quarrel with the decision—that the powers of the Scottish Education Department may be delegated to the Secretary of the Department. In point of fact, he has the main supervision of education in Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland cannot possibly be expected to have close supervision of education because he has to control and supervise some half-dozen State Departments in Scotland, and accordingly the power must be delegated. I wish the Committee to observe the position. In addition to the Secretary of the Department, there is an Advisory Council of some 12 individuals who, I understand, give their services in an honourary way, and give advice when they are asked to do so upon any definite question which is put to them. They have no responsibility whatever, either to this House or to anyone else. They have, for example, made no report to this House. I have suggested—it will not be permissible for me to do more than mention the fact—that there ought to be some rearrangement with regard to the supervision of education in Scotland. I should like to know whether the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has, under the present arrangement, an entirely Scottish supervision representative of all spheres in our national life, a democratic supervision and one which is in constant touch with Scottish life and opinion? In my view, the supervision is not of that desirable character, and it is that which I should like to see attained.
The next question is, How are we to get a complete survey of education? The criticism which I have frequently heard levelled against our reports is that you have, with regard to Scottish education, reports upon all its departments comprised in some six or more different annual or bi-annual reports, and that you cannot in any one volume get a
complete survey of our education. That ought to be rectified. I should like to give the Committee this extraordinary information. When you turn to the report of the Council on Education in Scotland which purports to be for the year 1930–31, it is dated 8th May, 1931, and contains the statistics for the year ended 31st July, 1930. In page 4 of the report, the case is given away in these words:
Most of the statistics are for the year ending 31st July, 1930, which is also the period covered by the last general reports of His Majesty's chief inspectors, but some are for the year ending 31st March, 1930, some for the year ending 15th May, 1930, and some for the calendar year 1930.
That is absurd, and the reports ought to be remodelled and brought up-to-date. We ought to deal with one definite period, either from 31st March in one year to 31st March in the next year or some other date, and present it in that way to the House.
Some reference has been made to the new education committees. I hope that they will prove to be new brooms which will sweep clean. I should like them to make a clean sweep of one or two things regarding education to which I want to make reference. There are two comments I wish to make about the new authorities. After all, it is too soon to criticise them. Out of 1,070 members, there are only SO women. Something requires to be done there. There ought to be a greater proportion of the mothers of Scotland having some direction in regard to the education of their children. The other remark I wish to make is that there, apparently, seems to be a diffidence on the part of the Secretary of State for Scotland to make any recommendations to the education committees. When I have put questions to him in the House making a suggestion that he should bring certain things to the notice of the education committees, his reply repeatedly has been that he does not consider it necessary. I hope that he is not afraid of them. I suggest that he should deal with those education committees just as he deals with the other local authorities under his supervision.
The question of examinations has been raised. I think that possibly a misconception has arisen with regard to examinations. Very confused statements
have been made with regard to that subject here to-night. I make no fetish of examinations, but I observe that there are others who do, and others who make a fetish of no examinations. I suggest to the Committee a middle course as the course of common sense. It is not at all clear from the announcement made by the Secretary of State for Scotland to-night, whether he means a clean cut at 12, and that all the children will pass at that age from the primary departments to the advanced divisions, or only the secondary schools with or without examination. The right hon. Gentleman kept an open mind upon that matter, and, accordingly, I suggest that other speakers have perhaps too hastily concluded that he intended that there should be no qualifying examination. I sincerely hope that the other speakers were wrong, and that I am right in believing that he has still an open mind upon the question. It is a curious commentary upon the whole situation that earlier this afternoon we had the President of the Board of Education for England arguing strenuously in favour of examinations, and many of them, and the Secretary of State for Scotland now comes down to the House and announces as a great achievement that he has decided, or means to decide, that there will be an end to the qualifying examination.
Now the commonsense view—and I submit it with great respect to the Committee, because it is in opposition, apparently, to the official view—is that, while no one would dream of subjecting young children to an examination year after year during the years between seven and 12, while we make them welcome to the fullest variety of education conducted on the most enlightened methods, I do say that when the time comes for them to pass, or to be considered for passing, into the higher division or the secondary school, a test of a very simple kind should be applied. It is commonly called the three "R's," but anyone who understands that expression knows that it is a short way of expressing, in its fullest content, the ability of the child to read, write, and do simple sums, and also to have some little knowledge of history and geography. In consequence of my having mentioned that before in this House there has been a most violent criticism on the subject. The purpose of examinations—and this is
a point which you will never hear from the official statement of the case—that the public who, after all, are providing some £12,000,000 per annum in order to give efficient education to the children of Scotland, are entitled to know by some public test whether, in point of fact, their children are receiving full value for the money that is being paid for education. That is the first purpose from the public point of view.
The next point is in regard to the children themselves. I think there is a great deal of disciplinary value in an examination at the age of 12, for it can be of a quite simple description. There is no use blinking the fact that examination at the age of 12 is necessary for other reasons, and I cannot accept the complacent view with regard to Scottish education which I find set forth in the Council's report, and which was reflected in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to-night. There is no use blinking the fact, and after the Debate last year the House may be interested to know I was furnished, without any request from myself, with ample evidence from a variety of sources that the view I ventured then to state was the correct one. I should like to tell the Committee the nature of that confirmation. The President of the Master Printers Association published a letter in the papers in which he said that primary education in Scotland was so defective, as shown in the examinations which his association conducted, that he had to report on the matter in terms which were far from complimentary. He said that out of the first 14 boys tested, only one had achieved a reasonable standard of education. Writing was poor, and in many cases execrable, capacity for expression was very weak, spelling was bad, and sometimes very bad, and perfectly simple arithmetic was beyond them.

Mr. G. HARDIE: Is not that due to the classes being too big?

Mr. SCOTT: Whatever the reason may be, the hon. Member can have his own explanation. What I wish to impress upon the Committee is that they must not think that primary education in Scotland is all that could be desired, because this was followed by evidence of a similar character from a banker in Dundee, from another business man in
Dundee, from a trader in a wholesale house dealing with shops all over Scotland, and so on. I will not trouble the Committee with details, but they can take it from me it was all to the same effect. I, therefore, say that that is a condemnation of the results of our system of primary education. It might interest the Committee to know whether the official reports correspond to those which were made outside. They do. For example, the inspector for the Southern Division of Scotland says:
The obstinate fact remains that less than half of the children in the schools, even of so favoured a district as Edinburgh, complete the primary course successfully in the time allowed.
The Western Division inspector reports in somewhat similar terms, and also the inspector for the Northern Division. Those admissions, though somewhat veiled by the inspectors, do show uneasiness on their part with regard to our system of education. I put the question to the right hon. Gentleman whether it was still true that 60 per cent. of girls and boys sent forth from the day schools had failed in various degrees to reach the normal goal in education, and the only satisfaction he could give me was that that figure had been reduced by 2.9 per cent. It is still a very serious situation, and I am apprehensive as to whether the position will be improved by the mere dropping of the qualifying examination or whether it does not mean the root-and-branch clearing out of the curriculum in primary schools. That is a matter which, I think, has not so far been cleared up. The only other matter to which I want to refer is that of secondary education. On this matter the lead has already been given by the Secretary of the Department in an important speech which he delivered at Leith in January of this year. We have had from the late President of the Board of Education a very complimentary speech in regard to Scottish secondary education, but I am afraid the information in his possession is not quite so recent as this. Speaking at Leith the Secretary of the Department said:
He would indicate one of the main facts about their secondary schools. He would take Leith Academy as an example of what occurred in many, if not most of the secondary schools in Scotland. In 1925, 350
pupils completed the first year of the secondary course. This number fell in the following years to 222, 123, 46, 18 and 15. In 1929, and again in 1930, the number of leaving certificates gained was 14. That was 350 starters, and only 14 who really finished the race.
The Secretary of State was good enough to send me, and also to publish, a list showing the corresponding figures for other secondary schools in Scotland, and it showed the same deplorable leakage and waste in secondary education. I want to know what remedy the Under-Secretary of State is going to offer for this deplorable leakage. Is he going to refer the matter to the Scottish Council for Research in Education. If so he will find in their report, published in April of this year, absolute confirmation of what I have said. They say:
One of the greatest educational problems of the present day is the wastage in secondary schools.
And they give figures which are staggering, showing that while you begin with a total of 30,944 that figure has dwindled to 6,631. I ask the Committee to consider the disappointment this must be to the parents of the children and to the pupils themselves. Various explanations and excuses are offered in this report for this wastage. They refer to the economic necessity, to the parents of the children being dissatisfied with the progress made, and to the children not liking the school. They also make a most extraordinary reference to a state of low intelligence. I hope that does not refer to Scottish children. One explanation which is not offered in this report is a mistaken curriculum. I should like the Under-Secretary to say whether he is satisfied that the curriculum is all that can be desired and whether it is in any way responsible for the state of affairs. The ideal of all those who think about education is that there should be a ladder from the primary school to the secondary school, and to the university.
I have repeatedly asked how many pass up the ladder from the secondary school to the university, but so far I have not received the information. It is information to which the people of Scotland are entitled. They should be told how many certificates have been obtained in each county and by each school. Unless education authorities generally have that information they cannot deal with their educational problems efficiently. I offer
these remarks to the Committee not as a Jeremiah on the subject of education but because I believe that the best service one can render to the cause of education is to examine it carefully, to look the facts in the fact, and, where there are deficiencies, to point them out and thus improve the situation throughout the whole country.

Mr. STEPHEN: The hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) has taken a very pessimistic view of Scottish education. He has given us figures, and as I listened to him I was reminded of the old statement that statistics could be used to prove anything. But I really think he is a little too apprehensive as to the position of Scottish education. Hon. Members who represent Scottish constituencies will have had the experience of meeting the products of the Scottish educational system. It may be that things are bad to-day, they always are bad in the present. It has always been the custom for people to deplore the terrible state of things in their own time, they are always going steadily from bad to worse, whereas the truth probably is that the present is in many respects ever so much better than the good old days of the past. From my experience of our educational institutions and my intercourse with my follow countrymen, I am confident that the present state of education in Scotland will compare favourably with any period in the history of Scotland. The children of Scotland to-day are just as intelligent as ever. They are as capable of making their way as the children of my own generation, or of the previous generation.
There is a wastage in the matter of secondary education, but there always has been this wastage. As I listened to the hon. Member for Kincardine it seems to me as if his great idea is to get a leaving certificate. That is an entirely wrong view to take. A certificate may represent a certain attainment in examinations, but that is not the thing that really matters. What does matter is the development of a decent cultural level, and I believe that at the present time we are in a very favourable position as compared with the past. One of the great improvements in our educational system is the care that is taken of the children and the opportunities which they are getting. I am not altogether
in agreement with some of my former teacher associates in idealising the conditions in the schools of the present day. I do not think there has been anything like the development in the jolly idea of the school to the extent that some of them would have us believe, but, on the whole, the school to the children to-day is a comparatively happy environment, and they have fairly good opportunities for the development of their mental capacity and for fitting themselves for the future tasks of life.
One great weakness to-day is the tendency to adopt and defend the utilitarian idea in education. For example, children go into the advanced course or secondary course and they get a certain training in languages. They begin to learn French. They never become really efficient in speaking French. Someone then says "Look at the waste of it. They have got nothing from it." But have they got nothing from it? They have gained something in the little association they have had with the other language, something real, and something that I believe will be of value to them and will enrich their lives. But because they are not in a position to carry on a conversation with other people in that language the common idea is that it has all been waste. It will be said that they might have spent the time in training for engineering or for some other industry that they are to enter. We have people who are very highly trained in their respective industries. The workpeople in the industries of this country are well skilled. I think it would be a great pity if one were to visualise the ideal education as simply one which enables a person to become skilled in a particular handicraft. The ideal is to give each individual as many interests as possible, to broaden mental outlook. I hold that in the development of Scottish education we shall make a great mistake if we try to concentrate on a few things to the exclusion of the development of a proper mental outlook.
I am not quite happy regarding the reduction of the size of classes. A great deal more has to be done in this matter. For some years now there has been a tendency to try to take the necessary steps for the reduction of classes, but always there has been also an attempt to get round the matter by considering how
many there are on the register and the average numbers in the classes. If you get a register with 55, possibly you are told that there are seldom 50 present. I think we have to aim at much smaller registers and work on the basis of what is on the register and not on the basis of what we are told will probably be in a class on a certain date. We must take the figure on the register as the figure on which to work. In elementary education we must seek to get the numbers in the classes ever so much nearer to the numbers in the classes for secondary and advanced education. The elementary teacher must have more consideration shown to him with regard to the size of classes in comparison with his colleagues in secondary schools. The hon. Member who preceded me is worried because £12,000,000 is being spent and because we have not got the juvenile population reaching the standards in education that he would like to see. Perhaps one of the factors in this connection has been that the elementary classes are still far too large and do not give sufficient opportunities to the teacher.
One other point I want to make relates to administration. A boy or girl leaves a school and applies for a job. The employer has many applicants. An applicant is told that he cannot write a letter and cannot count. Possibly the employer who talks in this way and is carrying on his share of the business of the British Empire, cannot write a letter and cannot count. Always, ever since I can remember or since I have been interested in education, the same thing has been said. It is so easy to say that a lad or girl is not able to write a letter or to count. I believe that the lad or girl is able to write and count and to prove himself or herself adequate, taking everything into consideration. Of course we will improve things in future. I believe that in this business of education the fundamental factor is the economic factor. If the incomes going into the homes of the parents were increased very largely we would get a greater improvement than by any other method. There would be an opportunity given to parents to provide the material environment in the homes of the children.

The CHAIRMAN: That does not come within administration on this Vote.

Mr. STEPHEN: It is quite true, but when one is dealing with educational ideals and the spending of £12,000,000 there arises the question whether value is being obtained for the £12,000,000, taking into consideration the economic circumstances of the parents of the children. I was only suggesting that that factor ought to be taken into account. The children ought to have in their own homes a sufficient measure of comfort; they ought to have in the schools sufficient accommodation and bright and airy classrooms, and we ought to see to it that the children attending school are properly nourished. If all that is accomplished, then you have highly experienced and skilled teachers to carry out the work. I believe that at present there is everything to show that the standard of education in Scotland is as high as ever it was, and I believe that the children who are now in the schoolrooms of Scotland will show in the future that they have profited by their educational opportunities and will prove themselves just as capable as efficient and as good citizens, as any of the generations of the past.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: Reference has been made to the working of the education committees under the Act passed by the late Government. I was one of those who supported that Act through thick and thin and I desire to see it a success. But there are a great many new members of these education committees throughout Scotland who have not served their apprenticeship in educational matters. I was a member of one of the old education authorities. I knew very little about the administration of education when I entered that body and when I came out of it, I knew a little more, but not as much as I ought to have known. On the surface, the present education committees appear to be working in a fairly satisfactory way, but there are underground rumblings, and trouble may come to the surface in the future, if things are not worked in the right way. As I say, I wish to see the committees under the new system a great success, but I think some of the committees in Scotland have not yet grasped the fact that there are two partners in
education in Scotland. There are these education committees on one side and the Department on the other.

Mr. EDE: Where do the children come in?

10.0 p.m.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am speaking of the administration of education. During the next two or three years, whoever is in power, I desire to see the Education Department being asked to adjudicate in many instances throughout Scotland, between the education committees of the county councils, and the school management committees which have not the power possessed by the education committees. I would suggest—though I do not know whether "suggest" is the right word, because I am sure the present education authority is thoroughly alive to the fact—that in many instances the Education Department will have to inquire very minutely into the actions of the education committees in Scotland on two points. One is as to whether they are keeping up to date with regard to new buildings. It will be necessary to see that there is not too much limitation on expenditure on new buildings. The second point is that it will be necessary also to safeguard the interests of the teachers. The old education authorities got on extremely well with the teachers. They consulted the teachers with regard to salaries and everything was arranged in an amicable manner, and there was no grumbling. I never saw such a change come over Scotland in 10 years as during the régime of the old authorities. It is almost an insult to mention the fact, so well known is it, that the teachers threw themselves heart and soul into education then, as they do now, and everything went smoothly. We shall have to guard against this danger—that some of these committees may desire to look at one side of the question only, that of economy, and the cutting down of teachers' salaries, and then the Department, as the other partner, will have to come in and redress the balance. I think that that statement ought to be made in this Committee by one who was a staunch supporter of the Measure of my right hon. and gallant Friend the former Secretary of State, and one who worked very hard to get it through Par-
liament. We must make it a success, and we look to the. Education Department and to the activity of the hon. Gentleman opposite, who is one of the most active, able and cheerful Under-Secretaries we have ever had in the Scottish Department, to keep a vigilant eye on these committees and to see that the new Act works as well as the old Act did.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I have been rather interested in the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman). I cannot help feeling that we have only to wait for another 12 months and hear the hon. Member make another speech on this subject, then we shall find him as convinced as I was before the change took place, that in the interests of education, in the interests of the children of Scotland, it would have been far better if we had had no change under the Local Government Act of 1929. I shall not pursue that subject, however, because the proceedings up to the present have been harmonious that I would not like to disturb that harmony. As one who fought strenuously against the change in 1929 I am convinced that it was a mistake in the interests of educational administration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are now responsible for the administration of the Act which we both did our best to keep off the Statute Book. However, it is there, and as long as we have any responsibility in connection with its administration, much as we hated that Measure when it was passing through the House of Commons, we shall do our best to make it a success as far as administration is concerned.
This Debate has now gone on since 4 o'clock, and it has dealt with educational administration in bath Scotland and England. I cannot help contrasting the attitude of certain hon. Members on the problems of education, as compared with their attitude on certain other problems which come before us from time to time. I have a feeling that, if we had been discussing votes for graduates for representation of the universities, every representative of the universities in England and Scotland would have been in this House, but because we are merely discussing the sacred question of education, and particularly the education of
working-class children, we have only had during the whole of the Debate two university representatives. Those who were responsible for educational administration in Scotland for 4½ years are conspicuous by their absence, although they put me through may facings some time ago because my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate did not happen to be in his place.
I want to take several of the points which were raised in the Debate. The hon. Member who represents the Scottish Universities (Mr. Cowan) referred to the amount of money available for education. It is a lucky job for some of us, perhaps particularly for me, that money does not always mean education. On the other hand, if you are to get efficient administration in education, a little addition to the money available is not out of the way. In Scotland we have been fairly lucky, because, under the administration of a Labour Minister in England who has spent more money, Scotland under the 11–80ths principle has £384,000 more available. It is too early to pass final judgment on the change-over and the new regime, and I repeat that, much as we dislike that Act, my right hon. Friend and I, responsible as we are for administration, will do our best to make it a success because it deals with educational administration as well as other problems. Reference has been made to the need for reducing the size of classes. May I recall that it was in 1924, under a Labour Administration and under the guidance of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, that notice was given to the education authority in Scotland to reduce classes from 60 to 50. I am more than pleased to emphasise the fact that, while there are 1,500 less pupils in our schools, we have 540 more teachers. I am not satisfied, nor is any educationist satisfied, with the size of the classes. We shall not be satisfied until we have a system under which the teachers will be able to understand each child in the class instead of having to undertake, as now, mass instruction.
The hon. Member for the Scottish Universities asked whether it would not be possible to approach the Treasury and get grants for raising the school age in
Scotland, while leaving it as it is in England. No one knows better than he does the great difficulties in the way. We would have to provide for maintenance grants. I had better not pursue that matter, because the raising of the school age would mean new legislation to provide the finance, although all we have to do, so far as administration is concerned, is to name the day under the Act of 1918. The Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire (Duchess of Atholl) spoke about the continuation classes and the good work which they do. I hope to see that good work continue. I left school at the age of 13, because they would not allow me to leave at the age of 12, and the limited education I received after leaving the day school was received in the continuation classes. Since those days there has been a rapid development in continuation classes. From this Box I would appeal to the education authorities in Scotland to do all they possibly can to encourage attendance at the continuation classes, particularly in the four years' course, because they will be helping to supplement the education provided in the day schools and further improving the education of the young people who can take advantage of those classes.
One of the faults of our education system has been that we have one mould and that we have attempted to put every child into it. If we are to have real progress, we shall have to get the variety which was referred to by the Noble Lady the Member for West Perthshire, so that we shall have the moulds necessary into which the children can fit instead of having only one mould. Reference was made to the three years' courses in our advanced division schools being far too academic, and they are. It is the responsibility of the education authorities themselves. To the best of my knowledge, no proposals for the widening or extension of the courses have been sent to the Department that have been turned down. They are willing to give every consideration to a widening of the courses for the purpose of seeing that an opportunity suitable to the child is provided which will fit that child for the battle of life and make its life easier, if we provide that variety of courses which ought to be provided by the education authorities.
Then the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) made special reference
to examinations, and so did the hon. Member for the Scottish Universities, and the only adverse criticism that I have heard during the Debate to the suggestion that we were going to abolish the qualifying examination came from the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott). For fear that there may be some misunderstanding as to what is proposed, I would repeat what my right hon. Friend said on this subject. He pointed out that there had been a process of transference from the primary to the post-primary school, which was handed over to the new authorities. Certain of these qualifying examinations had been reduced to a minimum, and then my right hon. Friend said:
Now we feel that we may take another stop. This examination, it is generally felt, is open to many objections. There is no doubt that it has put too severe a strain both on the teachers and on the pupils. It does not test the whole of the manifest activities of the school—far from it. It keeps a certain number of pupils grinding away at uncongenial tasks, instead of giving thorn the opportunity of finding salvation through the more attractive and more varied courses of the post-primary school. It is surely possible for teachers themselves to arrange the transference at this critical stage of a child's career.
I want to emphasise that, so far as the qualifying examination is concerned, what we can do to abolish it will be done during our period of office.

Mr. MAXTON: That is the most revolutionary thing that I have heard from the Government.

Mr. WESTWOOD: After all, there are sometimes revolutions from the Front Bench as well as from the back benches. I would emphasise the fact that all the arguments are in favour of abolishing this examination. Many of us trust ourselves on ships, but we never seek to interfere with the work of the captain. There are many here who are quite well educated, but who would fail to pass an examination on test papers set by children of 13 years of age. It is no test of education merely to sit for a written examination. I have sometimes thought I would get some children out of the Fife schools, of 12 or 13 years of age, to set the test papers for some of those who are so desperately anxious to have examinations, but I am afraid
the pass marks would have to be about 0.01.
A good many of us on these benches who were in the mining industry knew very little if anything about winding machinery in the mines, and we never interfered with the work of the winding engineman; we trusted him. Many hon. Members cannot drive a car, but they trust themselves to the one who can drive. If you can do this so far as trusting those who have control of the machinery of driving for your safety is concerned, if we can trust ourselves to those whom we have educated to be captains of our ships, we are entitled to trust the teaching profession, on which we have spent so much money in training them for the job, to see that the children are passed on according to their ability instead of having an examination such as we have given them up to the present time. I am not in favour of examination, but I am in favour of education.
I was put two other questions by the hon. Member for Kincardine. He mentioned the fact that the total expenditure on education in Scotland was not the sum of money which my right hon. Friend had to get voted by the House to-night. That is perfectly true, because we are dealing only with the sum of money provided from the national Exchequer. The total expenditure on education in Scotland is estimated for 1930–31 at £12,847,000; of this £6,790,000 is paid in grants, being equal to 52.8 per cent. of the expenditure. A sum of £5,854,000 is raised from the rates, being equal to 45.6 per cent. The other 1.6 per cent. comes from sources other than these two. A question was asked as to the Council of Education in Scotland. I do not think that we had better pursue that subject too far. They last met in the year 1913. The composition of the committee is the Lord President of the Council, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the First Lord of the Treasury, the Lord Advocate, and the right hon. Lord Craigmyle—[Interruption]. They do not need to meet, because the work is being done so well under the control of my right hon. Friend and his staff.
Let me sum up our policy in education. We want to have a curriculum suited to
the ability of the children so that we can get the best out of the children instead of providing for only a limited number and doing that at the expense of those who cannot benefit by the limited curriculum which we have had up to the present time. The best test of our educational system is not the number of students or pupils who pass examinations; it is the complete change in the outlook of the children now attending school as compared with even the days when we attended school. Then you used to have to drive children to school, but now they are anxious to go. This year we have had the highest percentage of attendance that we have ever had. It is the best test of educational efficiency when children are anxious to go to school instead of having to be driven, as some of us had to be. Our aim is to abolish the qualifying examination, and to see that new schools with adequate playgrounds are provided. When I was at school, about the only time I remember receiving punishment, from the finest old headmaster that ever had been in Scotland, was when I had to climb over a wall on purpose to play out in the street because of the limited amount of playground accommodation.
It is a fact to-day that under the new system of administration, if they want to get a piece of ground for the purpose of a war memorial, or anything of that sort, they do not try to get a new site, but just pinch a bit out of the playground. [Interruption.] I have had to deal with cases during the limited period I have been in Office, in which I have had to go down and see a site where they have not only fenced a limited playground for war memorial purposes, but have pinched a piece for public convenience purposes. [Interruption.] Yes, even stolen at the expense of the children. It was in Dumbartonshire. We want to provide new schools with adequate playground accommodation. Not only have we to educate our children intellectually but to give them an opportunity for games and physical instruction; for mass playing, if you like to put it that way, so that we can have the whole school playing games.
I remember when I was pleading for organisation and centralisation I was
accused of being a young man in a hurry. I am an older man now, but I am still in a hurry so far as the provision of playgrounds is concerned. The minimum playground accommodation for a secondary school ought to be 10 to 15 acres. We are interested in getting the co-operation of all parties in the State to secure the greatest improvements possible in education. We seek to lighten the primary curriculum, to throw overboard many of those things that do not help education, and to give a good solid foundation on which to build in the higher schools. Let us have the clean cut at 12 years of age, so that we shall not be penalising children who do not take to book-learning but who, by eye and hand, would get a better education in the central schools than they would get if they were retained in the primary schools, where neither accommodation nor teaching of the right kind is available. Last, but not least, having widened the curriculum so far as the advanced division classes are concerned, we have to do the same so far as the secondary courses are concerned, those courses leading to the leaving certificates. Those are the objects we have in view, and which we are seeking to attain.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am sorry to intervene so late. I did my best to speak earlier but others have been luckier than I was. First I would congratulate the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen) on his physical vigour after the proceedings of last night. In the circumstances he might have made a somnambulistic speech, and he is to be congratulated on delivering himself as he did. He said one or two rather sinister things, in a sense, especially in his references to the speech of the hon. Member for Kincardine (Mr. Scott) who had given testimony about a matter which really disturbs me and which is borne out by many employers, and that is the lamentable lack of instruction in the three "R's" which is evident among boys and girls who apply for employment. They are nothing like they used to be. I do not want to say I am one of those of whom the hon. Member for Camlachie spoke and of whom it might be said that he held with the Roman satirist:
Aetas parentum pejor avis tulit nos nequiores.
[HON. MEMBERS: "Translate."] But I think it is undoubted that primary education is not what it used to be. We do not get the beautiful caligraphy of the ancients before 1872. Even the very schoolmasters nowadays do not write the, beautiful handwriting which I remember, and they even call arithmetic something like applied mathematics, because that may seem to justify a somewhat more superior position. They do not give the hard grinding that they used to give, and the children are not taught with the severity they used to be taught. That is why they are so anxious to come to school now, because it is more a playing of games than a place of education. I have listened to the President of the Board of Education, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Parliamentary Secretary, and I have not heard one of them say anything to help us in regard to a definition of what education really is. Education is not a mechanically acquired accomplishment. In mediaeval times the cultured classes left reading, writing and arithmetic to others. I do not believe that Sir William Wallace could ever write his name, and lots of other distinguished men of the past were in the same category.
I was once given an explanation of how education came to spread across the Scottish Border. At one time education was peculiarly a matter for the priests. The Church gathered power and privilege, so that it came about that no clergyman could be tried by any ordinary court for any crime he committed, but only by a court of the clergy. It was then found that if you stole cattle on the Scottish Border, and you could read the Lord's Prayer, you would not be hanged, because it was presumed that you were a clergyman. Whereupon the Scots enthusiastically took to the cause of education. What is education? It is the formation of character. It is not only book education; it is also physical education. That was the Greek education. In times gone by they did not take children into the Scottish schools, but they gave them more or less an open-air education, and there are certain open-air schools to this day. Nothing could be worse for the children than constant study indoors. [Interruption.] It is not a question of climate, but a ques-
tion of clothing. That is far more important than any amount of good learning. You want to get mens sana as well as corpore sana. You want a strong physique, and that is far more important than book learning. I remember Lord Russell of Killowen being asked what was the secret of success at the Bar, and he said, "It is physical energy." If a man is not feeling well but is "in the blues" he cannot do justice to himself. I listened with interest to a doctor talking about medical and dental examinations, but really the problem is a matter of training and diet. Children should be taught in these matters. After all, dentists are only called in when the mischief has started. With proper diet there would be no need for dentists at all.
This idea of pure book-learning is not going to give us the educated population what we want. In the great times of the past there were no schools for many things. There were no schools in the great days of art and architects. Two hundred years ago, in Holland and elsewhere, there were great painters, but there were no schools and no training. You do not get the greatest possible results from mere tuition, but there are certain accomplishments that it is desirable to have, and, therefore, I believe that education, in the sense of training in certain arts, is a privilege that should be extended as far as possible. But to believe that merely by learning things you are going to make a change in character, and to make people better fitted for the battle of life, is a delusion.
The hon. Member for Camlachie said that very often an employer who was dissatisfied with the writing of an applicant could not write very well himself, and that is true. I have known big employers, very able men, who were wholly illiterate, but they had that indefinable thing known as character, and they had been educated in the university of life. Take the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill). He is one of the most brilliant exponents of the English language that we have, but I was reading about his early days, and I found that he was not considered good enough for the classical course, and went on to the modern side, and yet in him we have one of our finest exponents of the English language, in either writing or speaking.
The whole theory of education was summed up by our national poet when he wrote:
What's a' your jargon o' your schools,
Your Latin names for horns an' stools;
If honest nature made you fools,
What sairs your grammars?
Ye'd better ta'en up spades and shools,
Or knappin'-hammers.
A set o' dull, conceited hashes,
Confuse their brains in college classes!
They gang in stirks, and come out asses,
Plain truth to speak;
An' syne they think to climb Parnassus
By dint o' Greek!
This idea of taking all classes right through from the primary school to the university is a delusion, and it will do the mass of mankind a great deal of harm. Mrs. Humphrey Ward once said that it takes five years for a young man to get the better of a university education, and, indeed, it is only a Very small percentage that profit by it. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. G. Hardie) that the more general education a man gets the better he does in the battle of life; that is a delusion. In the Orient they take a little boy of the tenderest years and teach him his trade, and he is a splendid craftsman by the time he is 12, when he goes to school. He begins with the particular and ends with the general, whereas we begin with the general and end with the particular, and if a man is too long at the general he will never settle down to the particular.
I suggest that the Secretary of State for Scotland should consider whether he has not sufficient administrative powers to get the children of the country both sound in body and well trained—to take the children who are willing to go, and whose parents are willing that they should go, from town places into the country, and set them up and give them their education in the rural areas, letting them grow all the food that they need for themselves on their own land in their own school. Then they would be magnificently fed, and would be taught the greatest of all arts and sciences agriculture, while pursuing their useful education. Then you would be giving them a splendid physique and education at the same time, and would be solving the question of raising the school age,
because you could keep them at school till they were 16 or 17, as the Aberdeen farmers do with their sons, who work on the farm all the summer and go to school all the winter, and a better educated class of men you could not find anywhere.
I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he cannot find it within his powers to start such a system of education, and to give the local authorities a hint to make it voluntary, because otherwise it would be of no use. It could be done if parents and children were willing. The objection to the raising of the school age is that it would be a matter of compulsion. By all means let every boy or girl who is willing to do so stay at school until they are 15, or 16, or 17. We should give them every possible assistance. But do not conscript them; do not compel them. It is no argument to say that there are 1,000 teachers unemployed, and that therefore the children are to be conscripted to give them a job. Children do not exist for the benefit of teachers. There are too many teachers they say, so let us raise the age limit. But then a lot more may come in, because it is an advantageous occupation, and we will go raising the age on another year. I suppose they will stay at school ultimately until they are 21 and get an Old Age Pension when they are 40. That is the object of a good many on the other side. The thing would work out most disastrously. If we took the children into the country and educated them there and made them work for their own living, as they would love doing, it would re-create the whole population of the country. You would have an A 1 instead of a C 3 population in a single generation. They would be taught the greatest of all the arts, and all over the British Empire, wherever there is land to be got for nothing, you could settle men who know their jobs. You would build up a huge Empire, which is at present an unpopulated Empire, of really educated people. There is a real practical as well as theoretical scheme of education. Boys and girls would go to school to be put into a position in which they can earn their daily bread and settle down and make a home for themselves. If we adopted some scheme of that kind I have no doubt that
we should have a system of education which would make a great British Empire.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," put, and agreed to.—[Mr. T. Kennedy.]

The CLERK at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. SPEAKER during the remainder of this day's Sitting.

Whereupon Sir ROBERT YOUNG, the Chairman of Ways and Means took the Chair as Deputy-Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING (RURAL AUTHORITIES) BILL.

As amended, considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Application to Wales.)

In sections one and two of this Act in their application to Wales references to the committee shall be construed as references to a committee appointed for Wales by the Minister with the approval of the Treasury for the purposes of this Act.—[Captain Gunston.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
I apologise for moving a Clause with the idea of helping the people of Wales, as I happen to be an Englishman. The only time I have ever been in Wales was when I went to see England beat Wales very successfully in a Rugby match. But the spirit of the League of Nations is upon us all and I am sure we are all anxious to help that nation, though we may not have the honour to belong to it. During the last four years we have heard many impassioned speeches from hon. Members opposite and below the Gangway claiming that Wales should have more self-determination. On the Second Reading of the Bill a very remarkable and eloquent speech was made by the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), in which he appealed to the Minister to insert in this Bill a special
committee to deal with the problem in regard to Wales. We feel that by suggesting this new Clause at any rate we are attempting, though we are Englishmen, to carry out the wishes of the Members opposite who belong to Wales and Members below the Gangway who sit for Welsh Divisions. The hon. Member for Wrexham used these very significant words:
Celtic people have never been accustomed to live in villages. The rural house that has attracted the rural worker is to be found distributed widely over the area. From that point of view it is not sufficient to have a committee dealing with England and Wales together, and I would appeal to the Minister to consider whether he could not set up a committee to deal exclusively with the problem of rural housing in Wales."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1931; col. 2471, Vol. 254.]
That was the suggestion put by one of the hon. Members opposite who belongs to that great nation. It was also supported by the hon. Lady the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George). I know that she would have been here to-night but for the fact that she had another important engagement, and that she would have liked to have given her views to the House. She used these words on the Second Reading of the Bill:
I should like to take up the point raised by the hon. Member for Wrexham when he urged upon the Minister that there should be a separate committee for Wales to deal with the housing needs there. Such a committee is necessary, not only because we have separate circumstances and conditions in Wales, but also because I believe, fundamentally and on principle, that Wales in this matter as in many others should govern herself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th July, 1931; col. 2472, Vol. 254.]
When we came to a discussion on the Committee stage the hon. Lady used this remarkable phrase:
My chief complaint against the Government in regard to this committee is that while they have representatives from the county councils, the rural district councils, the building employers, the building trade workers, and the farm workers, they leave a nation unrepresented."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; cols. 313 and 314, Vol. 255.]
That is a fine phrase which, I think, shows that at any rate there is something in hereditary instinct. I think that we dull Anglo-Saxons realise that Wales and the Celtic nations have fundamentally a different point of view from those of us who sit for English Divisions. They are a nation with a different language from
our own. Recently we have seen them evolving a new system of mathematics not heard of before. Wales is a country very sparsely populated in certain districts where you have all the difficulties with regard to housing and the building of houses cheaply, like those which exist in Scotland. You ought not to overload this committee. The committee may have to travel to Yorkshire and Cumberland, and they may even have to go to Cornwall, and they will have tremendous powers. Is it really fair to say that the committee must go to Wales and deal with problems there, not knowing the Welsh people and being unable to speak the language properly, and probably having to take interpreters with them. I feel diffident and disappointed that that nation of orators should not have felt it incumbent upon them, at any rate, to put up one speaker to move this proposed new Clause. I sit for a Division which looks across the Severn, and I can look across to Wales, so I think it is only neighbourly that I should move this new Clause in order at any rate we may do what we can to assist the Government, so that when the Bill becomes law the Principality of Wales shall not be neglected.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Motion.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Miss Lawrence): I should like to make a few remarks upon this proposed new Clause. It is important, but there is really one thing which seems to me odd, and that is the unexpected nature of its sponsors. We have here hon. Members from Gloucester, Wiltshire, Kent and Devizes putting forward a Clause which touches very intimately a subject which we usually consider as one which is the special preserve of those who represent Wales and which deals with a matter on which they have always shown a very natural sentiment. My perplexity is deepened when I consider what happened on the Committee stage. The hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) put forward a very elaborate proposal showing the kind of committee he wanted, and he went out of his way to pour scorn on the desire of Wales for separate representation. He said:
I have no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George) will want some representative from her part of the world included, but, if we begin to include special people to represent the interests of that part of the country, we shall be setting a dangerous precedent."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; col. 308, Vol. 255.]
He went on to say he had no doubt that the hon. Lady was quite sufficient to represent Wales without any special representative on the committee. It seems to have been a very rapid and curious conversion. I can only sum it up in a Scriptural text. I said to myself:
The hands are the hands of Esau, but the voice is the voice of Jacob.
The hon. Member for Anglesey (Miss Lloyd George), speaking on the Committee stage, used a very striking phrase when she said that the conditions in Wales were very different from those of England. She said we were not only dealing with different conditions, but with a different civilisation. By that she meant the whole complex of the traditions history and customs, which make up the life of a nation, and which make all of us voice our feelings in regard to our own country. Those are things which no person with any degree of sense or imagination can fail to understand.
With regard to the Amendment itself let me say this. In the first place this Bill is a sort of appendix to the Housing Act of 1924. Wales has not got a Secretary of State charged with the administration of that Act. This Bill, which is a development of the 1924 Act, will be administered by the Minister of Health. That is my first point. My next point is this. There is this fund of £2,000,000. If you have two committees to administer it, it is perfectly clear that you could not leave each committee to operate independently, financially. You would have to make some apportionment as between Wales and England; and that is a peculiarly difficult matter. It is a very long time since any financial apportionment has been made between the two countries, and it would be peculiarly difficult in this case because nobody can tell whether the needs of Wales are great or small as compared with England until the claims are in, and any apportionment would run the risk of being unjust. Finally I desire to say that this is not a permanent but a temporary committee.
There still remains, in spite of these administrative points, the fact that the, ideas of Wales are different on this matter from those of England, and on that point my right hon. Friend has charged me to say that he proposes to give Wales full and efficient representation on the committee, of a character which he has no doubt will satisfy the Welsh demand. Hon. Members will understand that at the present moment it is impossible to give the names, but I give that assurance, which is an assurance the hon. Member for Anglesey desires to have, and I hope therefore that the proposal will be withdrawn.

Major OWEN: I desire to express my gratitude to the hon. and gallant Member for Thornbury (Captain Gunston) for having moved this new Clause, although I have doubts as to the seriousness of those Conservative Members who have put their names to it. My experience has been that whenever I or any Welsh Member have suggested some measure of autonomy for Wales, it has been greeted with derision by hon. Members above the Gangway, and this sudden conversion is to me a very great surprise. The Conservative Government, instead of gratifying the wishes of Wales for further autonomy, did all in their power to reduce the little autonomy we have now, and the right hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) will no doubt remember the part he took in that matter, I am glad to hear the promise made by the Parliamentary Secretary, and I accept it as a very satisfactory way out of the difficulty.
The position is this. We fully realise that we are all keen for greater automony for Wales. But in a Measure which is purely of a temporary character, which sets up a temporary committee, I do not feel that this in any sense of the word satisfies the desire of Wales for a measure of autonomy. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with various hon. Members, and I am sure, that from a practical point of view Wales would be served infinitely better by having representatives on the advisory committee that is to be set up. If a separate committee were set up the probability is that there would be a great deal of delay. The committee would probably not have the same
measure of expert advice as would be available to the larger committee, and probably our share in the sum of £2,000,000 will be comparatively small. I am the last one to put any obstacles in the way of satisfying the desires of Wales for autonomy, but at the same time I like to look at things from a practical point of view. I can speak from the point of view of the Nationalist feeling in Wales perhaps better than any other Member, because I am the only one who has had the experience of a Nationalist candidate standing against him. Therefore I sincerely welcome the pronouncement of the Parliamentary Secretary, and I hope that when the names are announced we in Wales will be satisfied with the representation that is given us on the Committee to be appointed.

Mr. ALBERY: The Parliamentary Secretary seems to be astonished that certain Members representing English county divisions have attached their names to this Amendment. There is really no cause for astonishment. We had very good reason for putting the Amendment on the Paper. I am much concerned about the working of this Bill in England. I consider that in all probability the committee created for England will have all its work cut out adequately to administer the Bill in England. We have already dealt with the case of Scotland, and if we can put some more of the work off on Wales the benefit will be for England, and we shall get better administration, more push and more efficient carrying out of the Bill in England. After having listened to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken I am more than ever confirmed in my opinion. The trouble is that when all these Bills are brought in to deal with the sister countries we in England always fare the worst.

Mr. MORRIS: I have listened with interest to this Debate. I agree with the remarks of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carnarvonshire (Major Owen). I hope that this enthusiasm for autonomy for Wales will be exhibited on another occasion by hon. Members. The reason that the Parliamentary Secretary has given for resisting the proposed new Clause was not
convincing. She stated that Wales has no Secretary of State and that therefore this concession ought not to be made in the Bill. It is true that there is no Secretary of State for Wales, but concessions have been made in other directions. We have our own Board of Health, and our own Secretary to the Board of Education. It is not necessary that there should be a Secretary of State in order to do this.

Miss LAWRENCE: My point was that the major Act was under one Secretary of State and that it was a little difficult to have a national administration in a matter of this kind.

Mr. MORRIS: But educational administration is under the President of the Board of Trade and notwithstanding that fact, we have our own permanent secretary. The Minister of Health is responsible for the whole of the health administration of England and Wales but we have our own separate Board of Health. If there is one Member of this House who knows the rural problem it is the hon. Member for Wrexham (Mr. Richards), who is himself a supporter of the hon. Lady, and on the Second Reading, speaking with an intimate knowledge of rural housing, he made a plea for a separate body for Wales to deal with the special conditions in Wales. Hon. Members above the Gangway have brought in the national argument. I welcome that argument and I will remember it at a future time when the party above the Gangway may be forming a Government. There may be other Welsh Nationalist Members here by that time who will call on hon. Members to carry out their pledges. The whole 36 Members from Wales may be Nationalist Members then. If hon. Members above the Gangway are sincere, and I hope they are, we look forward to seeing what action they will take when they have the chance of controlling the destinies of the country.

Sir KINGSLEY WOOD: I speak as one with an open mind on this matter. I shall carefully consider the arguments, and, at the end of the Debate, come if possible to a decision upon them. The most interesting thing in this short discussion has been the remarkable exhibition of the hon. and gallant Member for Carnarvonshire (Major
Owen). If anybody has let down Wales badly to-night, it has been the hon. and gallant Member. I remember very well the demand he made that some unfortunate inspector in some place in Wales should know the Welsh language. He has posed in this House as the leading exponent of Welsh nationalism.

Major OWEN: Who refused to grant that concession to Wales? The hon. Lady has granted what we have asked on this occasion.

Sir K. WOOD: The hon. and gallant Member is endeavouring to excuse himself. He has always posed as a leader of Welsh Nationalism in this House. I have no doubt he had his eye on the fact that at the last Election there was a Nationalist candidate against him and if I recollect aright, he dealt with that candidate in this fashion. He said, "There is no need for this candidate because I represent fully the ideals of Wales and I will stand up in the House of Commons and demand for Wales every consideration." Yet at the first practical suggestion of anything being done, he lets down Wales—I suppose for fear of precipitating some crisis with his hon. Friends opposite. As an excuse for that attitude, he says that somebody else treated Wales badly under the last administration in regard to national health insurance. That is no reason why he should not go boldly forward to-night. He could get up on that former occasion safely, and demand something for Wales; without fear of anything happening, and he did it then. But, to-night when he has the opportunity of doing something effective for Wales he has sadly neglected his duty. Whatever may be said of the last Conservative administration and its treatment of Wales with reference to national insurance, at least this can be said—we put up a much better answer on that occasion than has been put up by the Parliamentary Secretary to-night.
What are the arguments which the Parliamentary Secretary has put forward to satisfy the hon. Gentleman so far as this advisory committee is concerned? The Parliamentary Secretary said that if you set up this advisory committee for Wales, it must mean delay. What an extraordinary thing! Does it mean that the advisory committees for England and
Scotland are going to involve delay? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters) will hardly support that. It is true that Wales, perhaps, may not have such an efficient chairman as England has, but surely there is one Welshman who could take the chair at this board and put what he calls "push and go" into it? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) be the chairman of the advisory committee for Wales? I know that he would be very much better employed in that way than in certain other matters. Then the Parliamentary Secretary has said, "Oh, but this Welsh committee could not possibly have expert advice." What an excuse! Where is Wales? Is it a thousand miles away? Is it impossible for anyone to give advice, if it is needed, to the Welsh committee? Is it necessary to speak in the Welsh language in order that they may understand how to administer this Rural Housing Act? Does the hon. Gentleman for a moment accept the excuse that the Welsh committee cannot be set up because it is going to have no expert advice? What an excuse! And then we have the crowning excuse given by the Parliamentary Secretary when she said, "But this is such a small sum to administer for Wales that it is not

necessary to have a Parliamentary committee at all." I think, in the first place, that was an unfortunate statement to make to the Welsh Members who were supporting her to-night, that the sum of money to be given under this Act is so small. Apparently the sum is so small that it should be left to English hands to administer. But surely Welshmen can be trusted even with a small sum. [Interruption.] No; while I shall consider this matter and come to a final decision, I hope, a little later, I must confess that I do not myself understand why hon. Members who have fought for this matter so long and have some little opportunity of getting, at any rate, something, should turn the matter down, and I am sure tomorrow, when all the Welsh people who have looked forward to the day when they would have their right place in the Empire and all those things for which they have fought and bled, read the account of what the hon. Gentleman has said, they will be very disappointed, and there may be some desire on their part to change their Parliamentary representation.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 148.

Division No. 435.]
AYES.
[11.15 p.m.


Albery, Irvine James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Salmon, Major I.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Morris, Rhys Hopkins
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Muirhead, A. J.
Southby, Commander A. R. J.


Fielden, E. B.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Thomson, Sir F.


Ford, Sir P. J.
Penny, Sir George
Train, J.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Perkins, W. R. D.



Greene, W. P. Crawford
Ramsbotham, H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Remer, John R.
Mr. Womersley and Captain


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Ross, Ronald D.
Gunston.


NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Duncan, Charles


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Ede, James Chuter


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Buchanan, G.
Edmunds, J. E.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Burgess, F. G.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Cralgle M.
Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Edwards, E. (Morpeth)


Alpass, J. H.
Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Egan, W. H.


Ammon, Charles George
Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Evans, Major Herbert (Gateshead)


Arnott, John
Chater, Daniel
Foot, Isaac


Aske, Sir Robert
Clarke, J. S.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Cluse, W. S.
Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)


Barnes, Alfred John
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Gill, T. H.


Batey, Joseph
Daggar, George
Gillett, George M.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Dalton, Hugh
Glassey, A. E.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Gossling, A. G.


Broad, Francis Alfred
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)


Brooke, W.
Dukes, C.
Groves, Thomas E.


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mansfield, W.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marcus, M.
Sanders, W. S.


Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Markham, S. F.
Sawyer, G. F.


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Marley, J.
Shillaker, J. F.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Marshall, Fred
Sinkinson, George


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mathers, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Harris, Percy A.
Matters, L. W.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Messer, Fred
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Hayday, Arthur
Middleton, G.
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Mills, J. E.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Hoffman, P. C.
Milner, Major J.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Morley, Ralph
Sorensen, R.


John, William (Rhondda, West)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Sullivan, J.


Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Muggeridge, H. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Murnin, Hugh
Tillett, Ben


Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Naylor, T. E.
Viant, S. P.


Kelly, W. T.
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Walker, J.


Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Wallace, H. W.


Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Lawrence, Susan
Palin, John Henry
Watkins, F. C.


Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Paling, Wilfrid
Welsh, James (Paisley)


Leach, W.
Palmer, E. T.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Westwood, Joseph


Lees, J.
Phillips, Dr. Marlon
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Lloyd, C. Ellis
Potts, John S.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Longbottom, A. W.
Quibell, D. J. K.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Lunn, William
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


McElwee, A.
Ritson, J.



McEntee, V. L.
Romeril, H. G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacNeill-Weir, L.
Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.


Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Rowson, Guy
Charleton.


Manning, E. L.
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)

NEW CLAUSE.—(Rural district councils to make annual reports.)

It shall be the duty of any rural district council in respect of whom any contributions have been made under the Act to make an' annual report to the Minister showing the amount of contribution received, the number of houses provided, the extent to which such houses have been occupied, and the rents received therefor.—[Mr. Womersley.]

Brought up, and read the First Time.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time".
I think there will be no difficulty in the Parliamentary Secretary accepting this proposed new Clause, because it has been put down with the express desire of assisting her Department to deal with the question of whether or not local authorities are really doing their duty. From time to time, when questions have been addressed to the Government as to how their housing schemes were progressing, we have been assured by the Minister of Health that the reason such slow progress has been made is that certain local authorities are not pushing along with their schemes. Indeed, we have been told that on so many occasions that we begin to wonder whether it really is the fault of the local authorities. For instance, we have been told
that no houses have been produced as the result of the passing of the Housing Act nearly twelve months ago. Schemes have certainly been approved for under 200 houses. We feel it will be helpful to the Minister and the Department if returns are made from time to time, so that what the rural districts are doing may be known, especially as we have been told that this scheme is in the nature of an experiment and that only 40,000 houses are to be built, an average of about 4 per parish for the whole country. It is because of our desire to assist in strengthening the Bill that we have put down this Clause.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE: I beg to second the Motion.

Miss LAWRENCE: We are grateful to the hon. Member for his good intentions, but I must ask the House not to accept the Clause. The first provision is that rural district councils shall make a return showing what we have paid them, and that seems unnecessary. The second point is that under the present practice, the information referred to will be forthcoming. The Clause would only make a statutory provision of what is now a common practice, and we see no reason for adopting it. Anybody who has administered a Department will see that a provision of this kind is unnecessary.

Sir THOMAS INSKIP: The reply of the hon. Lady strikes me as being one of the most inadequate I have ever heard, even from this Government. The hon. Lady has expressed her gratitude to the Opposition for the solicitude they show on the Government's behalf and I am bound to say it is a tribute to which we are entitled, because this Government is not so full of good deeds that it ought to complain of anybody who will encourage it not to hide its light under a bushel. We invite the Government to use a little publicity. We invite it to require rural district councils to put into the form of a public return a statement of the combined efforts of the Government and the council. If the Government had any confidence in its scheme I should have thought it would welcome the suggestion, because that report, advertising the success of the scheme, would be a feather in the cap of the hon. Lady. Her second reason for resisting the Clause struck me as being one in favour of accepting it. She said that what the Clause proposed was already the practice. In that case what harm can there be in putting it into the Bill? When we have found a good thing let us enshrine it in our legislation. And supposing it were not the practice, do I understand the hon. Lady to say there is anything objectionable in it? On the contrary, I understood her to say it is such an excellent practice that it will be followed in the future. Therefore, the only difference between the hon. Lady and ourselves is that we want "probably" turned into "certainly." We want to make it statutory that this practice should be followed in future. I agree that it seems unnecessary at first sight to state the amount of the contribution received, but that is only part of the return, and it is desirable that not only the Minister but the public should know this. Imagine the excitement in a rural district when the local paper published a report showing that the Government had produced one house in a rural district, and had actually taken an interest in agriculture. In the interests not only of the rural district council but of the countryside and of the Government they should accept this proposal. It is desirable that the proceedings of these local authorities should be advertised as widely as possible.

Miss LAWRENCE: This is a private report to the Minister.

Sir T. INSKIP: I cannot imagine a private report to the Minister not being made the subject of publicity if the Minister is proud of it. I have no doubt that the Minister will get over that little difficulty and will not be anxious to regard it as confidential if anyone wants it published. Besides anything which stimulates the interest of the public in the affairs of the rural district council is in the interest of the nation at large. This country has been built up in the tradition of local government. At one time it was the magistrates at quarter sessions, and they did a great deal of admirable work in training the British nation in local government. The rural district councils have inherited those traditions, and we should give them the publicity to which they are entitled when they co-operate with the Government in providing cottages for the people. On reflection, the hon. Lady will see that this excellent practice should be made statutory, and I am surprised that she should have treated it with the levity which she has.

Mr. HURD: I support this Amendment in the interests of the rural district councils. If there is one matter upon which they feel more sensitive than any other, it is the lack of knowledge of the Ministry of Health of their activities and the lack of direct communication which this Amendment will help to remove. If there had been a provision of this sort in previous Housing Acts under which rural district councils were the housing authorities, and they had been called upon to make annual reports of their progress, there would have been more satisfaction on both sides. The tendency in recent years has been to submerge bodies like rural district councils, which have very important local duties, and any movement tending to do away with that I should support.
I also support the Amendment on the ground mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. You cannot hope to get this or any other Measure affecting local interests working satisfactorily without an acutely active local public opinion, and nothing can awaken public opinion more effectually than the knowledge on the part of each rural district council that it will be called upon to make an annual report on what it has done under the legis-
lation passed by Parliament. It would be a thousand pities to miss such an opportunity of trying to awaken opinion in the localities and in the Ministry. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it would be only a private report to the Minister. I wonder why? This annual report would be brought before the rural district council at its annual meeting; it would be the subject of discussion in the council, and therein would be of great value; it would be published in the local Press, and the council would be proud of it; or, if they were not proud of it, they would try to see that the next report they made was one of which they could be proud. On every ground I think that this is a movement which ought to be encouraged.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I think that if the Parliamentary Secretary considers this matter a little longer she will realise that it is essential to have these reports, unless there is something to be afraid of. Does the hon. Lady believe that houses will not be provided, or that when local authorities have built them they may not be occupied? I do not understand this shyness on the part of the hon. Lady. She is not generally in that state of mind. It is the Lord Advocate who generally refuses to give information. Suppose that in a year's time there were a change of Government, and this was the only Act of the present Government that had been successful. Think of the honour and glory of the Minister in being able to compel the Conservative Government to admit that the Socialist Government had done something good and valuable.
It may be that there is another reason than the hon. Lady's natural shyness. Possibly it is to be found in the last word of the last line but one. There have been very brief promises during this Debate on the matter of rents under this Bill, and it is quite likely that the reason for not wanting a report published year by year as to what is being done by the local authorities is that it

will not only be found that the Bill is not as successful as was promised, but also that it is not possible to live up to the standard of rents which the Minister has said will probably prevail. I can understand the Minister of Health not being too keen on this matter, but there is another side to the question apart from the purely English side, because the Bill deals also with Scotland, and we know that the Scottish authorities have been very active in this respect. One or two counties, like my own, have been active. I want to see some means of comparing the active with the inactive counties, and I should have thought that the Lord Privy Seal, who is now here, would be only too pleased to have this Clause, to enable him to show how much Scotland has done.

I suppose the Government refuse this because, by some chance or other, as the time has gone on they have not that real belief in the Bill that they should have. I believe it can be made operative and for that reason, if for no other, I support the Clause. Let the Government take their courage in both hands and show a little confidence in their own policy. They have every reason to have confidence in it. They are being supported by the Conservative party in the main principles of the Bill and, when that happens, they probably will not go very wrong if they would only do it thoroughly. I would ask them to consider whether they cannot meet the desire of the Opposition. It will not be a very costly matter and it must be to the advantage of the community as a whole that we should know exactly where we stand under the Act when it is in operation. That in itself would give us an additional means of amending it if it was necessary, but I hope it will not be. I should like the Government seriously to consider accepting the Clause, which would be in the interests of the Bill as a whole.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 38; Noes, 126.

Division No. 436.]
AYES.
[11.43 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Albery, Irving James
Butler, R. A.
Gunston, Captain D. W.


Beaumont, M. W.
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Bracken, B.
Fielden, E. B.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.


Broadbent, Colonel J.
Ford, Sir P. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Framantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Hurd, Percy A.


Inksip, Sir Thomas
Remer, John R.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E.
Womersley, W. J.


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Salmon, Major I.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Muirhead, A. J.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Captain Margesson and Captain


Owen, H. F. (Hereford)
Train, J.
Sir George Bowyer.


Penny, Sir George
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)



NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Paling, Wilfrid


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Palmer, E. T.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hayday, Arthur
Phillips, Dr. Marlon


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradlord, South)
Potts, John S.


Arnott, John
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Aske, Sir Robert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)


Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Ritson, J.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Romeril, H. G.


Bennett, Sir E. N. (Cardiff, Central)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, Guy


Brooke, W.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Samuel, Ht. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Buchanan, G.
Lawrence, Susan
Sanders, W. S.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley
Sawyer, G. F.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Leach, W.
Sherwood, G. H.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)
Shillaker, J. F.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lees, J.
Sinkinson, George


Cluse, W. S.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sitch, Charles H.


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Daggar, George
Lunn, William
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McElwee, A.
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. L.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Dukes, C.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Sorensen, R.


Duncan, Charles
Manning, E. L.
Stephen, Campbell


Ede, James Chuter
Mansfield, W.
Sullivan, J.


Edmunds, J. E.
Markham, S. F.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Marshall, Fred
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mathers, George
Walker, J.


Egan, W. H.
Matters, L. W.
Wallace, H. W.


Foot, Isaac
Messer, Fred
Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Middleton, G.
Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)


Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Mills, J. E.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gill, T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Gillett, George M.
Money, Ralph
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gossling, A. G.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Hackney, S.)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Groves, Thomas E.
Muggeridge, H. T.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Murnin, Hugh
Wilson, S. (Oldham)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Naylor, T. E.



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Mr. William Whiteley and Mr.




Charleton.


Question. "That those words be there inserted in the Bill", put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 1.—(Special Government contributions to housing expenses of certain rural district councils.)

Mr. HURD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) If any member of the committee becomes, in the opinion of the Minister, unfit for any reason to continue to be a member of the committee tie Minister may terminate his appointment.
I will be quite frank with the Parliamentary Secretary. We are bitterly disappointed with the attitude which she has taken towards some of our Amendments. The last Clause was one which she might very well have accepted and it would have eased the passage of the Bill. We now come to an Amendment which is in a sense her own idea. It is a proposal which the Government themselves
have inserted for obvious reasons of necessity in the Anomalies Bill. That is the first ground on which we commend it to her attention. These committees will have very responsible duties. They will have to interpret and carry through the directions laid down by the Minister, and it is manifest that, if any member of the committee cares to do so, he may very seriously obstruct the very purpose which Parliament has in view in this legislation. If we turn back to the experience of the Act of 1926, we see how personal prejudices are able to obstruct the intentions of Parliament. If we have in existence committees to carry out the directions laid down by Acts of Parliament, it is not desirable that any member shall wilfully and continuously disregard what Parliament has in mind.
The very existence of such a provision as this in the hands of the Minister would tend to check any obstructive tendency of the sort. Otherwise, you may get a member of the committee who may impede and drag the whole thing along and so really defeat the whole purpose in view.
We on this side are not too proud to learn and we have learned from the Anomalies Bill that this is the kind of provision that should be made and which is really necessary to ensure the effective administration of the law. I know that, for reasons which we all understand and appreciate, the Minister is absent from the House, but the Parliamentary Secretary is in charge, and I ask her to remember that she is a host in herself, and, if she will only take courage in this matter and do what she must know to be right, she will accept the Amendment.

Major LLEWELLIN: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the hon. Lady will accept it. We notice on reading through the Bill that there is very little about the appointment of this Committee in it. I also notice—and I am glad to see it—that the members are not going to be paid. That is all the more reason for getting rid of them quite summarily at the dictation of the Minister if they prove themselves unfit for the purpose for which they are appointed. It seems to me a power that the Minister should certainly have. The only reason I can see why it could be opposed by the Minister of Health is that any new members will have to be appointed with the approval of the Treasury. I can well see that the Minister may refuse to accept this Amendment, because he may find himself having to go again to the Treasury to ask for their approval for the appointment of other members. There are very wide powers—far wider than those which we are attempting to incorporate in this Amendment—which the Minister has under the Unemployment Insurance Bill, for she has tremendous powers to dismiss any member of the committee. I hope the Amendment will be accepted by the hon. Lady, and I can really see no reason why she should not do so.

Miss LAWRENCE: I do not think much importance can be attached to this
Amendment, as the committee is of a purely temporary character, although it is not usual to put in such a condition even when the committee is of a permanent character. If hon. Members opposite wish to confer additional powers upon my right hon. Friend I see no reason for opposing it, and I shall be pleased to accept the Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I think the hon. Lady might have accepted the Amendment in more gracious terms. A great deal can be said for the proposal. There can be no doubt about that after the ungracious speech of the Parliamentary Secretary. Suppose that we have an unsatisfactory chairman or a member who turned out to be utterly unreliable, who said one thing one day and the opposite the next? Obviously you must have power to remove such a member and I commend the Amendment most warmly to the House.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to insert the words:
(2) The committee shall consist of eight members of whom one shall be representative of rural district councils, one shall be representative of county councils, one shall be representative of building employers, one shall be representative of building trade workers, one shall be representative of farm workers, one shall be a woman, and two shall be persons having experience of commerce and industry.
12 m.
We had a long discussion in Committee on the constitution of the committee, and at this late hour I do not propose to enter upon another long debate, although I must remind hon. Members that we on these benches were not responsible for the prolonged sitting last night, and it is our duty to see that the Bill is amended in a proper way. The fact that the Parliamentary Secretary has just accepted an Amendment is proof positive that we are trying our best to strengthen this particularly weak Measure. We feel that it is necessary that Parliament should have some control as to what interests are to be represented on this committee. The Bill does not provide for this at all, although the Minister himself has told us what, in his opinion, is an ideal committee. It is not often that I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on a housing question, be-
cause I know how unsuccessful he has been so far with his schemes. In framing this Amendment, we said, "We will take the Minister's own word for it. We will let him have his own way for once and give him the committee that he himself suggested." Here you have a committee of eight Members, the exact number that the right hon. Gentleman suggested as ideal. The various bodies that he thought ought to be represented we have included. It cannot be denied that the rural district councils ought to have at least one representative. One is to be a representative of the county councils. In a great many districts now the county councils are the over-riding authority in housing matters, and the County Councils Association ought to nominate one member. One is to be a representative of the building employers. That was the Minister's own suggestion. One is to a representative of the building trade workers. Again that was the Minister's suggestion. Both sides in the industry ought to be represented. One is to be a representative of the farm workers. That, too, is the Minister's suggestion. He made a promise to a deputation from the Agricultural Workers' Union that they should have some representative on any committee set up. One shall be a woman. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not object to that suggestion. Arguments could be brought forward in favour of this proposal which would convince even the bachelor Members of this House. Two are to be experienced in commerce and industry. I recall that for one of the most important committees that the Government appointed the first gentleman whom they invited to become a member was a late member of this House who was also well versed in commerce and industry. The Government always go back to the business man when they want something really valuable done.
We have, therefore, framed for the Minister an ideal committee based on his own ideas in the matter. I know there may be a little difficulty, in connection with this Amendment, because the hon. Lady has told us that she is going to appoint a representative for Wales on the committee. At the same time, I am sure it would be possible to find a person from Wales, having experience
for instance of commerce and industry. Indeed, we might also find among the Members of this House an hon. Lady from Wales who could act as the representative of the women of the country, so that the difficulty I have indicated need not be regarded as a very serious one.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
May I recall to the Parliamentary Secretary the definite promise made by the Minister when we were discussing the Financial Resolution? My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Hurd) asked the Minister what kind of a committee was to be set up and the Minister replied:
If the hon. Member will be patient I can assure him that before the Bill reaches its final stage I shall be pretty definite about the kind of committee this will be. But I prefer not to say anything about it now.
You, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee on this occasion, thereupon asked:
Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?
and the Minister replied:
It will be in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1931; cols. 2000 and 2001, Vol. 254.]
It is now midnight and at eleven o'clock to-morrow morning we shall be discussing the Third Reading. If the constitution of the committee is to be mentioned in the Bill, as promised by the Minister, it will have to be inserted now. If not, then the Minister is breaking the pledge which he gave to you, Sir, as the Chairman of the Committee on the Financial Resolution. I hope the Minister will realise the seriousness of the situation. The Opposition have been promised a definite statement on the formation of the committee and no attempt has been made to implement the promise. We have been doing our best to help the Minister and have put down, in this Amendment, suggestions based on his own speeches. It may be necessary to make a change in the proposal, if the hon. Lady is going to include a representative of Wales, but it is vital that she should say, now, how this committee is to be constituted.

Miss LAWRENCE: I must ask the House to reject the Amendment. The Minister, it is perfectly true, gave the
House some general information as to the functions of the committee, but I would remind hon. Members that at a later stage, the question of putting the constitution of the committee into the Bill was discussed. A detailed Amendment was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) during the Committee stage of the Bill setting out a list of twelve representatives of different interests to constitute the committee and the discussion on the Amendment occupies 8 or 10 pages of the OFFICIAL REPORT. The Minister then said that he deprecated putting into the Bill, precisely the sort of persons who were to be on the committee. His view has been justified by the fact that since that time, hon. Members have proposed various enlargements and improvements of the original suggestion. I have myself given an undertaking in regard to one matter. I could not certainly accept the Amendment which is contrary to the undertaking given by the Minister and the Minister's desire not to narrow the representation on the committee by having it restricted to people who are tied to this or that particular interest. It is desired to have the committee representative in the wider sense and to have upon it persons who thoroughly understand the problems with which they will be called upon to deal. The Minister hopes to give the names at some early date next week. I hope hon. Members will not press this matter.

Mr. ALBERY: Do I understand the hon. Lady to say that she had given an undertaking that some specific person would be on the committee?

Miss LAWRENCE: I said I had given an undertaking that the views and the special interests of Wales shall be represented on the committee.

Sir T. INSKIP: The hon. Lady has omitted to deal with the most serious part of the speech which was made by the hon. and gallant Member who seconded the Amendment. The hon. Lady has advanced scarcely any reason against the Amendment on its merits. We are almost at the last stage of the Bill, and the Minister said that he would give a pretty definite idea of the constitution of the committee before the final stage. The first argument for the
Amendment is its reasonableness. But, when it is realised that the Minister himself suggested this very form of the committee, it seems that opinion on this side of the House agrees with the opinion of the Minister himself. We are proposing the Minister's own idea. We had a long discussion on this subject the other night, and the Minister then said that we were suggesting 12 members whereas his idea was eight, and he criticised the inclusion of certain representatives. We have now agreed to leave those persons out. We are in literal correspondence with his own proposal in moving this Amendment.
But even that does not touch the heart of the question. This is a matter which touches your responsibility, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in another capacity. Not only did the Minister, in explicit and unqualified language, undertake to put the constitution of the committee in the Bill, but you, Sir, as Chairman of the Committee of the House, stopped the discussion on the ground that the Minister had given a definite promise. I have seldom known any promise more exactly made or more definitely binding upon the people who made it, and I ask any hon. Member opposite, in his heart, to apply the same consideration to this question as he would apply to any of the ordinary affairs of his own life. Does any hon. Member think that a promise given under those conditions, with the results to which I have pointed, is one which he could honestly, even under the dictation of a party whip, refuse to honour? [Laughter.] It is no good the hon. Member opposite, who is comparatively new to the traditions of this House, laughing at this, because if there is one thing that this House will find it right to do, it is to respect its undertakings given across the Table, and whatever may be said about undertakings given perhaps in the heat of debate, without any consequences of following them, when, as you ruled, Sir, as Chairman of the Committee, that the discussion must not be continued because the Minister had given his promise, I say that there is a peculiarly solemn obligation on the part of the hon. Lady to honour it in the letter and the spirit. The hon. Lady looks at me as if I was not correctly representing what took place. Let me read from the OFFICIAL REPORT of the 7th July. Says the Minister:
Before the Bill reaches its final stage I shall be pretty definite about the kind of committee this will be. But I prefer not to say anything about it now.

The CHAIRMAN: Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?

Mr. GREENWOOD: It will be in the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN: Then any question about it arises on the Bill, and not here.

Mr. HURD: We are asked to hand over this money to a body of which we know nothing.

The CHAIRMAN: When the hon. Member comes to the Bill he can propose to change the committee if he is not satisfied."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th July, 1931; cot. 2001, Vol. 254.]
Therefore, on the Committee stage of the Financial Resolution, the House by, if I may say so, your proper Ruling, was precluded from getting a statement from the Minister on the explicit ground that the Minister had given an undertaking which everybody intended and expected he would honour. I admit that it places the Government in a difficult position if they are not prepared at this moment to implement their promise. I can see the inconvenience of doing it, and that it may possibly require the withdrawal of a letter or the sending out of another letter to-morrow morning, but the inconveniences that may attach to the insertion of this proposal in the Bill now are as nothing compared with the disastrous consequences of refusing to implement a promise given to an Officer of this House, and governing the conduct of a Debate.
The hon. Lady has this one great argument in her favour: she has the big battalions. If the numbers at her disposal this evening are to be the justification for a refusal to keep the promise that was made, I have such a sincere respect for many hon. Members opposite—I say this in all sincerity and solemnity, and I am honestly reluctant to say anything to exasperate feeling in this House—but I seriously and solemnly say that it will not be creditable to the Government if the inconveniences to which I have alluded are not faced and the Minister's promise kept. I hope the hon. Lady will reconsider her position.

Miss LAWRENCE: Really, I cannot believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present at the Committee Debate.

Sir T. INSKIP: I heard every word of it.

Miss LAWRENCE: I meant that I did not think he could have listened to the Debate at a much later stage, in the Committee.

Sir T. INSKIP: Every word.

Miss LAWRENCE: Very well, then. There was an interchange of words between the Chairman and the Minister, and the Minister used these words:
If I misled hon. Members I am very sorry for having done so, but I did not mean to put anything in the Bill of that character. I am also very sorry that it has not been possible to make any announcement of names."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th July, 1931; col. 327, Vol. 255.]
Then there comes the point when the discussion was stopped. It had nothing to do with it. We had a very full and long discussion on the Committee stage and Second Reading, but not on the Financial Resolution. The hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham (Captain Cazalet) moved an Amendment for a committee of 12 members. The Committee discussed it at great length, so that no substantial injustice was done to anyone by the discussion of the constitution of the committee not being taken on the Financial Resolution. Even so, I think that the constitution of the committee was a thing which any Chairman of Committees might very probably have ruled out of order on the Financial Resolution on the ground that it would be better discussed on the Bill. The House was not deprived of a discussion, because we had a very long Debate on a specific motion to put a particular constitution of the committee in the Bill. It was one of our longest Debates; the very worst that happened was that the discussion took place on the Committee stage.

Sir T. INSKIP: The discussion to which the hon. Lady is now referring took place about 12.30 or 12.45 one morning, whereas the important discussion which was stopped by the Chairman in Committee was taking place about 5 o'clock in the afternoon—a much more reasonable hour.

Miss LAWRENCE: The discussion occupies 22 columns in the OFFICIAL REPORT, and can anybody say that the House was cheated of a proper discussion,
whatever the hour? Now consider the practical point. A committee of eight was mentioned by my right bon. Friend; it is set down in this Amendment, and was supported in all parts of the House. Now we have a demand for Wales, which I have to-day promised to meet. How-can I across the Table of the House adjust the new demand to the old? How can I say here and now what people will go on the committee, and what adjustments have to be made? All this business amounts to is that the Minister made a slip and afterwards said that he was sorry; the House has not been cheated out of a word of discussion and has had ample opportunity of debating the question. Did ever a right hon. Gentleman make such a fuss about nothing or use such pompous solemnity regarding something not enough to whip a cat about.

Sir K. WOOD: The Parliamentary Secretary is not going the right way to get her Bill. The right hon. Gentlemen who are on the Front Government Bench will, I am sure, regard this matter as of some importance. It is not to be dealt with in the fashion in which the Parliamentary Secretary has endeavoured to deal with it. I would not have prolonged the Debate but for her speech, for the Lord Privy Seal knows that I would have helped in the progress of this Measure, as I have undertaken to do, but no one who has any regard for our procedure and the undertakings of Ministers can lightly allow a speech of that kind to pass without any further observations. I would like the First Lord of the Admiralty and the First Commissioner of Works, who are on the Front Bench, to listen to this undertaking, and to say whether it can be regarded as a mere slip, and whether the House has not a grave complaint, not on the grounds that there was not a proper opportunity for debate, but because a definite undertaking was given. This was the question put by the Chairman on the Financial Resolution: "Will the constitution of the committee be in the Bill?" That is perfectly plain. Then the Minister of Health said: "It will be in the Bill." Upon that, the Chairman said that any question about it arises on the Bill and not on the
Financial Resolution. You could not have a more definite Parliamentary pledge than a pledge of that character. If the Minister or the Lord Privy Seal had come to us to-day and said, "There is grave inconvenience in carrying out this undertaking and we wish to withdraw it"—

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Lansbury): Is not the right hon. Gentleman overlooking the fact that since that statement was made, the Minister of Health has apologised to the House and told the House that he made a mistake, and that the House has debated the matter?

Sir K. WOOD: I say that there was a definite undertaking given, and that then the Minister of Health said there was a slip. My point is that if a definite undertaking of that kind is given, and if it is found to be a matter of grave inconvenience to carry it out, I can imagine that the House, if a responsible Member of the Government had got up and said that, would have said, "In these circumstances, as there is grave inconvenience in the undertaking being carried out, and having regard to the explanation of the Minister, we will not take the matter further." What I want to put to the Government, however, is that there is no grave inconvenience at all in carrying out this undertaking. What is it? It is simply that the constitution of this Advisory Committee should be put in the Bill.
Having had some experience in dealing with Bills, I should have thought that the Minister of Health would have said at once, "Whether I made a slip or not, I have given an undertaking, and as there is no very grave inconvenience in putting the constitution of this committee in the Bill, I will put it in." Instead of that, we had a very long argument in the Committee stage, and we have had another to-night, much longer than I anticipated, and all because the Government are refusing to put the constitution of this Advisory Committee into this Measure. There is no inconvenience about adding one member for Wales. I do not think the First Commissioner of Works sufficiently appreciates that this Amendment carries out, word for word, the suggestions of the Minister himself as regards the Advisory Committee. These are his own
words. I have the OFFICIAL REPORT here of that also. There is not a single person here, except the Parliamentary Secretary, who does not know full well that if we desire to add "and one member representing Wales," it could be done in a couple of minutes. Yet, although a definite undertaking has been given, although it has been explained that it was a slip, although there would be no difficulty whatever in putting this in the Bill, for there is no constitutional or other question involved, the Parliamentary Secretary has taken up an attitude which I am sure the Minister of Health will be the first to regret when he hears about these proceedings and knows we have made a strong point about it. I regret very much that the Government has taken up this attitude. But for the fact that we shall keep up our undertaking that they shall have the Report stage of this Bill to-night, and so as not to inconvenience the programme tomorrow, I think this would be a real occasion for a Motion of Adjournment of the Debate. I have given my undertaking to the Lord Privy Seal, and I will keep it as far as I am concerned, and will not take that course, but I do feel very strongly about this matter.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. T. Johnston): In the unavoidable absence of the Minister of Health, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will not object if I add a word to the statement which he has made. I do not object to anything which he has said. He very properly says that he will stand to his undertaking and let us have the Report stage to-night. But I think it is due to hon. Members that they should be fully seized of the fact that on the discussion of the Money Resolution the Minister did inadvertently say that he intended to put the composition of this committee in the Bill. At a later stage, in the discussion on the Committee stage, on 14th July, that pledge was very fully and elaborately read out from the Opposition benches. The Committee was made fully aware of his pledge, and the Minister, in reply, when the pledge had been read out fully by the hon. Member for Kelvingrove (Major Elliot), himself said that he had made a slip, but that he did intend to make the House aware of the categories of persons whom he hoped would be put on this committee. Subsequent to that ex-
planation, the Committee divided. The Committee was fully aware of all the facts, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, having again drawn attention to the fact that a slip was made on the Financial Resolution, might well enable us now to take the feeling of the House.

Sir K. WOOD: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. All I can say is that his speech is of a very different character from that of the Parliamentary Secretary. After the explanation given it becomes a very different matter. I consider the observations made by the Parliamentary Secretary grossly impertinent and insulting.

Miss LAWRENCE: On a point of Order, I desire to ask you whether those words are in accordance with Parliamentary Order. I am perfectly certain they are not in accordance with the ordinary practice of civilised people.

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: On that point of Order. Is it consonant with Front Bench procedure to charge other hon. Members with pompous solemnity?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I think it is very regrettable that such words should be used by speakers on both sides of the House.

Major LLEWELLIN: Is there any value at all in the hon. Lady's undertaking given to Wales to-night? I am not suggesting for a moment that I do not accept her word, but I have no doubt that she would not say that her word was any better than that of her chief. An undertaking to-night has been given to include a Welshman on this committee. We may get at the last moment to-morrow, on the Third Reading, somebody saying to us that that was an unfortunate slip. We have had the same thing with regard to other members of the committee, and we may have it again with regard to the Welsh representative if Ministers are to ride off as they have done. The hon. Lady could have been very much more frank and friendly with the House than she has been to-night. I think it is the right of every hon. Member to point out what exactly has happened, and to show quite clearly to the House that everybody appreciates undertakings given across the Table. I am very much con-
cerned when an undertaking which has been given has to be gone back upon later. If the going back is done pleasantly and frankly, everybody in the House accepts it, but, when the hon. Lady adopts the attitude which she has done to-night, she has only herself to blame if hon. Members take exception to the way in which she expresses her views. Although perhaps it was done in loyalty to her chief, it was unnecessary of her to do so in the words she used to-night.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I should like to echo, for a moment, the words of my predecessor on these benches. I feel very seriously, that this is not the first time the Government have offended in this matter. It would not be in order to refer to the action of the Lord Advocate, but, after all, this is the second occasion on which a definite statement from the Front Bench has been given which at a later stage has been cast away; in the one case on the ground that there had been a slip; in the other, with the use of the word "inadvertence." We should like to know, in future, from someone on the Front Bench, when a definite promise is a slip and when it is an inadvertence.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I do not think we ought to add to the difficulties of the situation. We have already had three speakers dealing with this subject. The hon. Member is not entitled to repeat his own arguments on the matter.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I am very much obliged, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The words you have said sufficiently crown the achievements of this Government, so I will say no more. But I hope this will not be a precedent, because the country will not stand it.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Government whether at any rate they cannot help us in one particular point. As far as I personally am concerned, there is one individual in this committee in whom I am most interested, and that is the representative of the farm workers. I think nearly every Member of the House agrees with that particular point. I am not—particularly after your ruling—going into the question of the incident we had a few minutes ago. It is far too early in the night to begin that. But may I ask the' Lord Privy Seal or the
First Lord of the Admiralty, or some responsible Member of the Front Bench, whether it would not be possible, by changing the word "eight" into "nine" and adding, at the end, "one representative of Wales,"—would it not be possible, in these circumstances, for the Government to accept the Amendment? They could move these words and have them inserted now, or, if that is not satisfactory, they could do exactly the same as has been done on other occasions when promises have been made by the Front Bench to put in matters at a further stage of a Bill. Would it not be possible—it will, indeed, have to be, so far as I see it—to put in a Welsh member in another place, and to pledge the Government that the word "eight" will be amended to the word "nine" in another place? That is not a very difficult proceeding, and I think it would enable a good many Members of the House to look at it from a quieter and more mild point of view.
I appeal to the Government, on this point, to try to treat the case with that reasonableness which the Lord Privy Seal showed just now, to go just a little farther than they have gone, and to accept the Amendment now on the understanding that in another place the Welsh difficulty will be met. So far as I personally am concerned, I do not in any way wish to criticise, or to say anything on behalf of the Amendment, except that once again I must say I think it is most essential that we should lay down this matter of the farm worker. Also, I believe that now we are dealing with this matter in this way it would do no harm if the Government would assure the House—which they have not done on this Bill, so far—that this committee will not be made up, as to the chairman or any other member, of what I might call political persons, but rather of persons chosen for their knowledge and skill, and if they would definitely give a pledge to the House to rule out political persons, or persons of a political party, a pledge definitely to rule them out from the Bill. If we want to see the Bill working satisfactorily, that is absolutely essential. I hope the Government will yet see their way to accept the Amendment, particularly when I realise that the House has been rather hardly treated in this matter, from many points of view, especially from this aspect, that we know little or nothing of whom or what the Minister is going
to put into the Bill. We have his own words that he gave us the other day; but, now that we have tried to place his word's into this Amendment, they are turned down in the Amendment. The Government turn down the Minister. I think the Minister has been extremely badly treated in this respect, and I think

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 2, line 20, at the end, to insert the words:
(3) A copy of any application made to the committee under this section by a rural district council shall at the same time be sent by that council to the council of the county in which the rural district is situate, and the committee shall, before making any recommendation upon the application, consider such observations as maybe submitted to them by the county council within such period (not being less than fourteen days from the date of the application) as the committee may prescribe.
I understand that, although the Minister is unable to accept this Amendment,

it would be only in accordance with the dignity of the House if some really responsible person would accept the Amendment on behalf of the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 94.

Division No. 437.]
AYES.
[12.45 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Albery, Irving James
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Aske, Sir Robert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hurd, Percy A.
Train, J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Womersley, W. J.


Butler, B. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir George Penny and Captain




Sir George Bowyer.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hayday, Arthur
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Potts, John S.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hoffman, P. C.
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Alpass, J. H.
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Ritson, J.


Ammon, Charles George
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Arnott, John
Kelly, W. T.
Rowson, Guy


Batey, Joseph
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Lawrence, Susan
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgess, F. G.
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Shillaker, J. F.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Leach, W.
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Charleton, H. C.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Colline, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Daggar, George
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Dalton, Hugh
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
McEntee, V. L.
Sullivan, J.


Duncan, Charles
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Thurtle, Ernest


Ede, James Chuter
Manning, E. L.
Viant, S. P.


Edmunds, J. E.
Marshall, Fred
Walker, J.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Mathers, George
Wallace, H. W.


Egan, W. H.
Matters, L. W.
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm-, Ladywood)


Gill, T. H.
Messer, Fred
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gillett, George M.
Middleton, G.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glassey, A. E.
Mills, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gossling, A. G.
Mliner, Major J.
Wilson C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morley, Ralph



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Muggeridge, H. T.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Murnin, Hugh
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.


Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
Paling.


Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)

he was able to make a statement and satisfied the county councils on the subject. [Interruption.] They should have a chance of making their protests. I move the Amendment formally.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HURD: I would like to point out the extraordinary difficulty of putting this Amendment into operation. The county councils are not the bodies who are going to put it into effect. After all, this is an emergency Measure, the object of which is to get these houses in
the quickest possible time. The idea is that the rural councils can send these notices to the county councils. A county council only meets once a quarter. If you try to put this provision into operation you will hold up everything which we wish to expedite. I hope the Minister will not think of accepting this Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE: I was about to ask the hon. and gallant Member to consider this question. In the first place, the county councils must have a very important part in these housing proposals, because they keep the applications which are registered. It will be necessary for the committee to consult the county councils for two reasons. There is the question of the county contribution of £l a house. It will also be necessary to know whether the county council accepts the estimate of the rural district council as to the number of houses. [Interruption.] I think, therefore, that all the County Councils Association desire in ordinary administration is there and that this Amendment will not be necessary.

Mr. HURD: Has the Minister of Health consulted the rural district councils on the matter of this really complicated machinery?

Miss LAWRENCE: We have seen that this Amendment is too complicated.

Mr. HURD: You are holding up the Bill.

Miss LAWRENCE: The Act of 1930 says that they must make a contribution of £1. They may make a contribution of another £1.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: On the assurance of the Parliamentary Secretary that the county councils will have plenty of time to put forward their protests, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 2, line 42, at the beginning, to insert the words
Subject to the provisions hereafter in this sub-section contained."—[Mr. Albery.]

In line 44, to leave out from the word "exceed," to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words
three shillings per week."—[Captain Gunston.]

In page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that in no case shall the Minister determine on a rent for such houses which exceeds ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wages in force in the area concerned at the time of his undertaking to make a special contribution in respect of such area under this Act."—[Mr. Albery.]

In line 9, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that when the committee makes a recommendation to the Minister that a rent exceeding three shillings per week should reasonably be charged the Minister may make an order in the terms of such recommendation."—[Captain Gunston.]

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move in page 2, line 42, at the beginning, to insert the words:
Subject to the provisions hereafter in this sub-section contained.
I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that, in speaking to this Amendment, to which two others are to some extent consequential, we are allowed to discuss the three Amendments together.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The four Amendments.

1.0 a.m.

Mr. ALBERY: I will try to be brief. The Amendment in which I am principally interested is the Amendment which proposes that the Minister shall not be empowered to fix a rent higher than one-tenth or ten per cent. of the statutory wages of the agricultural labourer in the district concerned. This particular Bill has two main objects, as mentioned in the money resolution. One is to build houses speedily, and the second is to build them to let at a low rent which agricultural workers and the poorer sections of the population can afford to pay. It does not seem to me conceivable that either this House or the country would be willing to add to the housing subsidies already in existence a still further housing subsidy unless they were convinced that the two main objects of the Bill were going to be achieved; above all, that the houses were to be let at a rent
within the means of the leas well-paid population. As I spoke on this matter during the Second Reading Debate, I do not intend to pursue it now at greater length, and I will content myself with moving the Amendment.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to second the Amendment.
I also have an Amendment down to achieve the same object as the hon. Member who has just addressed the House. Our object is really to ensure that this Bill shall carry out what it is intended to do. The object of this Bill is to build houses for the agricultural labourers, and we feel that, unless, by some means, you put in the Bill what the maximum rent will be, two very disastrous results may happen. In the first place, unless you have a limit to the rent, the effect will be to send prices of buildings up. You will check that by putting into the Bill a maximum rent. The other object is to concentrate the attention of the local authorities on the object of the Bill—that is, to build houses and let them at rents which the agricultural labourer can afford to pay. That is why we consider it so essential to have in this Bill some figure—as I suggest, of about 3s. a week. The Minister of Health has a chance in this Measure, by putting in this Amendment, of doing more for the agricultural labourer than the Minister of Agriculture will do in 50 years. The agricultural labourer gets a very low wage. He is likely to get a lower wage the longer the Labour Government remain in office. Apart from that, we all want to get him a house for which he can afford to pay the rent. The Minister of Health suggested the other day that that was quite reasonable, but that there might be areas where, owing to difficulties such as transport, it might not be possible to let a house at 4s. or 4s. 6d. Tent. Therefore, I have put down a second Amendment, which reads as follows:
Provided that when the committee makes a recommendation to the Minister that a rent exceeding three shillings per week should reasonably be charged the Minister may make an order in the terms of such recommendation.
I suggest that an Amendment on those lines is practical and is very simple. It says that you shall let these houses to the agricultural labourer at a rent not
exceeding 3s. a week, but, in order to get over the border line cases, the Committee will advise the Minister and, in that case, you can have a higher rent. I do think that the Minister might accept these Amendments, because it will be a death blow to this Bill if it goes out to the country that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have so little confidence in it—and I have never seen more lukewarm support for a Bill from a Minister and Parliamentary Secretary—that they dare not put it in an Act of Parliament that you can build houses, even with your subsidy, for agricultural labourers at 3s. a week.

Mr. JOHNSTON: We appreciate the point of view that has been stated by the two hon. Members who have just spoken on this series of Amendments. We sympathise with their object, and we accept the fundamental proposition which they have both stated, that the object of this Bill is to provide healthy habitations for agricultural workers and persons of the right economic status at rents within their competence to pay. In this series of Amendments they ask that some maximum figure as to rents should be placed in the Bill. One Amendment specifies a figure of 3s. I merely ask the House to note, in passing, that that Amendment is so framed that it does not say exclusive of rates. It leaves the question of rates, so to speak, in the air.

Captain GUNSTON: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the discussions the other day I suggested 4s. 6d. with rates, and that the Minister said that if you had a maximum figure it tended to become a minimum. Therefore, we put 3s. in without mentioning rates, and it was entirely to meet that point.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I know; that is precisely one of the difficulties. I merely say, in passing, that if you put a figure of 3s. in the Bill, as is suggested here, you do not say 3s. exclusive of rates. Another Amendment fixes the figure at 10 per cent. of the statutory wage rate, and a still further Amendment says that if the committee should in any circumstances fix a rent of over 3s. a week the Minister may make an Order in the terms of such recommendations. Those are the three propositions.
Let us examine them, and, if I convince the House that it is not in the interest of the agricultural labourer, nor of low rents, then I hope that hon. Members opposite will agree with me. Let me take the first one dealing with the fixed rent. Let us consider Norfolk with a wage rate for agricultural labourers which varies from 30s., the lowest, to 35s. 6d. for shepherds, teamsters, and so on, a difference in wages alone of 5s. 6d. Let us take Suffolk, which has the lowest wage rate in England. The rate there is 28s., while in other agricultural districts the wage rate is 41s. I put it to hon. Members opposite that, if they put in a figure of 3s., it might be applicable in one area, but not in another. If we take the Eastern counties, there are variations of 5s. and 6s. per week above the minimum fixed by the wages board. If you take Somerset, the wages committee there has, in fixing the wage rates, made allowance for the value of a cottage and has fixed cottage rents there as high as 5s. 6d. In Essex the wages committee has fixed the rents as high as 5s. With all these wide variations which are possible, we would immediately land ourselves in a state of chaos if we fixed the rent at 3s. either with or without rates. You cannot make it applicable to all these varying circumstances in all these different districts. I hope the hon. Gentlemen opposite will see that.
The question then comes as to what is the Government's intention and what is the purpose of this Bill. The Ministry will endeavour to give such a subsidy as will enable these cottages to be let at about 4s. 6d. a week including rates. That is the general purpose, the general superstructure, but, if the Minister or anyone else seeks to put into precise language the maximum rent which will be applicable to all these varying circumstances in the different districts, it will make the committee's task impossible and will defeat the object which we all have in view.

Mr. ALBERY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question? Does not the 10 per cent. proposal cover the different districts?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No. Wages vary and the district rates vary, and a 10 per cent.
rent in one area would be lower than a 10 per cent. rent in another.

HON. MEMBERS: Why not?

Mr. JOHNSTON: It is possible to let your houses at no rent at all, but, if we set out with the object of making a maximum of 4s. 6d. including all rates, we are securing the object which the hon. Member has in view of enabling cottages to be let at rents which the agricultural labourer, whatever his wages, is able to pay, and we leave it to the committee to fix the rent in the different districts according to the circumstances and according to the facts placed before them. In view of all these facts, we see no reason whatever but very grave disadvantage in placing a maximum rent in the Bill. We believe we should handicap the committee and tie their hands in certain districts and that we should rule out certain classes of agricultural labourers whom everyone desires to see included.
As to the last Amendment, which says that the Minister shall make an order if the committee recommends a rent of over 3s., we can see no purpose whatever served by making a formal order, by issuing a printed document stamped with a seal. If you leave to the committee power to make the necessary regulations, to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, and to fulfil the object which the House has in view in passing this Bill, then we shall get our 40,000 houses in areas where these houses have never been built before and we shall provide houses for a class of the community which has had no previous assistance from any Housing Act passed by Parliament. We shall also provide employment in the coming winter to many unemployed men in the building industry. I hope the hon. Members opposite will therefore see their way not to press this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD: I shall only be a few minutes, as the right hon. Gentleman has stated his case perfectly plainly, and, after we have divided the House on the two points we desire to make, we shall keep the House no longer than is necessary. The right hon. Gentleman knows, however, that he has not met the points which my hon. Friends have raised. I would say to hon. Members, who are interested in this question, that,
in the first place, the Bill itself leaves the matter at large so far as rents are concerned. It is true that the intentions of the Government are perfectly honourable in this connection, that they desire, as they did in the case of the Wheatley Act, to provide houses at low rents. All the statements which the right hon. Gentleman put so well at the end of his speech to-night are familiar to me. They were all said when the Wheatley Act was before the House. It was said that that Act, with the extra subsidy it gave, would provide houses at lower rents and that the extra sum provided under that Bill would bring that desirable end about. We all know, despite those aspirations, that, although the Wheatley Act has played a part in its contribution to housing, it has failed in providing houses at lower rents. Therefore, we say that we should have a definite understanding about this matter and that we should lay down in the Statute itself exactly what the rents are that are going to be charged.
There are not three proposals before the House to-night, because one is consequential upon the other. There are only two proposals. We take the Minister's own figures and not the figures of the right hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Sir J. Tudor Walters), because, if we did, we should have to take a much lower figure and put an unnecessary burden upon the Government. We say to the Government "Let us take your figures and put them in the Bill and thus secure that particular rent to the agricultural labourer. If, in fact, your figures are wrong, as unfortunately they may be and as experience in the past has proved; if the extra subsidies do not bring lower rents, then, if the committee does recommend a rent exceeding this figure of 3s. a week for the agricultural labourer, they must specially report the case to the Minister with the reasons for it and the Minister will make a special order." That involves the Minister in the matter and involves the Minister's scrutiny of the particular case and his concurrence in an increased rent of over 3s. a week.
This has an additional advantage, so far as the House is concerned, because while we cannot challenge the decision of this committee, we can challenge an Order made by the Minister. The advan-
tage of the first Amendment to the agricultural workers is to secure to them a figure which the Government have themselves laid down, and, if it is exceeded, we shall be able to examine the matter in the House of Commons. That is of distinct value to the agricultural workers, because it secures in the Act of Parliament what the Government say they can achieve. If the Government say this is a hard and fast rule, that there may be cases where the 3s. per week must be exceeded, and that where the wages of the agricultural worker are higher in some parts than in others a rent of 3s. may or may not be justifiable, in that case we wish to say that the rent shall not exceed ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wage in force in the area. We wish we were moving both these Amendments in a much fuller House at a much more reasonable time. I shall be very interested in this Division, because, although there may be few of us here to-night, we shall hear a good deal about these two Divisions in the months to come. I am sure that a large number of people will be disappointed so far as the rents are concerned, and they will examine with interest the proposition we are making to-night to secure a maximum rent of 3s. per week in return for the £2,000,000 to be paid, or, in the alternative, a maximum rent which shall not exceed 10 per cent. of the agricultural wage. We have no desire to prolong this discussion, and we shall be quite content, after the statement that has been made, to divide on these two Amendments.

Mr. BUTLER: I have not taken a very large part in these proceedings, and will not keep the House more than a few moments. I agree with the Lord Privy Seal that it would be rather a mistake to fix an actual figure for these rents owing to the great disparity in wage rates. It might lead to great unfairness. I do not see any harm in the proposal that the rent shall not exceed ten per cent. of the agricultural wage, because that would mean that agricultural workers who receive 30s. a week would have to pay a rent of 3s. It would also be a fair arrangement in Lanes., where the wages are 41s., and would work out to a rent of about 4s. a week. I see no objection to that, and, if there is a division on that point, I shall support the percentage arrangement.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: The Government have admitted that they cannot tell what the rents will be when this Bill is operating. You will have rural workers going into houses of which they will have to pay more rent than if the houses were obtained from a private owner. This proposal means that you are doing all you can to stop those who have been helping the agricultural labourer. It will show up Government housing more than anything else you have done. It will show that if you kill private enterprise you will kill housing.

Division No. 438.]
AYES.
[1.28 a.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Arnott, John
Hoffman, P. C.
Ritson, J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kelly, W. T.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lawrence, Susan
Shillaker, J. F.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lees, J.
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Manning, E. L.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Egan, W. H.
Mathers, George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glassey, A. E.
Mills, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gossling, A. G.
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morley, Ralph



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Albery, Irving James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Train, J.


Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.
Hurd, Percy A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Bracken, B.
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Womersley, W. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Llewellin, Major J. J.



Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Muirhead, A. J.
Captain Margesson and Sir George


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Penny.

Mr. ALBERY: I beg to move, In page 3, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that in no case shall the Minister determine on a rent for such houses which exceeds ten per cent. of the statutory agricultural wages in force in the area concerned, at the time of his undertaking

Mr. ALBERY: May I withdraw the first Amendment in my name in order that we may divide on the subsequent Amendments?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain GUNSTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, to leave out from the word "exceed," to the end of Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "three shillings per week."

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 90; Noes, 23.

taking to make a special contribution in respect of such area under this Act."

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 24; Noes, 90.

Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Margesson, Captain H. D.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Womersley, W. J.


Hurd, Percy A.
Muirhead, A. J.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Inskip, Sir Thomas
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)



Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Llewellin, Major J. J.
Train, J.
Captain Sir George Bowyer and




Sir George Penny.




NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hayday, Arthur
Potts, John S.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Arnott, John
Hoffman, P. C.
Ritson, J.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Rowson, Guy


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Kelly, W. T.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Sanders, W. S.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sherwood, G. H.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Lawrence, Susan
Shillaker, J. F.


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Sitch, Charles H.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Leach, W.
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Daggar, George
Lee, Jeanie (Lanark, Northern)
Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)


Dalton, Hugh
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Smith, Tom (Pontefract)


Duncan, Charles
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Smith, W. R. (Norwich)


Ede, James Chuter
McElwee, A.
Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)


Edmunds, J. E.
McEntee, V. L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Manning, E. L.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Marshall, Fred
Wallace, H. W.


Egan, W. H.
Mathers, George
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)


Gill, T. H.
Matters, L. W.
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)


Gillett, George M.
Messer, Fred
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Glassey, A. E.
Mills, J. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Gossling, A. G.
Milner, Major J.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morley, Ralph



Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)
Mr. Paling and Mr. Charleton.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 19, after "1930," to insert the words:
and that such dwelling accommodation is not likely to be provided within a reasonable time by any public utility society or any other form of private enterprise.
The object of this Amendment is to try to secure that areas where cottages are most required shall receive the benefit of this Bill. As has been pointed out already, only about three or four cottages are available per agricultural parish if they are equally distributed; and I think that that is a very poor contribution on the part of this Government towards meeting the situation. If you study the Amendment, you will find it limits it, to a certain extent, to those areas in which cottages will probably not be provided by any form of private enterprise and where public utility societies are not prepared to supply cottages. I would point out the benefits which certain areas receive from building societies and which are not really available in country districts that are far from towns. It must be obvious that the contribution of the building societies to the housing problem is a very important one. I dare say that
hon. Members know there are something like 600,000 people receiving benefits from building societies, having, presumably, an interest in houses. These building societies, as a rule, operate round the outskirts of large towns. They do not operate in some of the parishes which should be called agricultural parishes. Where the influence of these societies is felt it would be better to apply to them to provide the houses than that the Office of Works should come in and build them. If it were earlier in the evening, I would give the House a number of figures, but I will spare the House now. When State assistance has been given in certain localities the building by private enterprise has gone down, because private enterprise has waited for State assistance. I think that is fairly well known and generally accepted, certainly on this side of the House. In these days when economy is needed every help should be given to develop private enterprise. While we realise that in certain districts which are sparsely inhabited, and farms are few and far between, they require assistance of this kind, other districts do not. As far as I can see, there are few of the sparsely inhabited areas getting
the share of the assistance which they require.

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: I beg to second the Amendment.
You are doing an irregular thing, and introducing a new and original proposal. It ought to be a very exceptional measure for the Office of Works themselves to come down and do the building. It may be necessary to do it in certain cases, but you ought to take the utmost care you possibly can that it is absolutely necessary to get it done by the central authority; and you have exhausted all possible local facilities to get the building done. If you possibly can you must avoid the State coming down from the centre and interfering with the economic life of the locality. The Clause in the Bill should only be used for very extreme cases. If you do not introduce some reservation, there is a definite danger that, instead of these powers to the Minister to bring down plant and build in exceptional cases being used only in these exceptional cases, the proposal may be used in all sorts of places which could quite well make an

Division No. 440.]
AYES.
[1.52 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur p.
Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart


Albery, Irving James
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Train, J.


Bracken, B.
Hurd, Percy A
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Inskip, Sir Thomas
Womersley, W. J.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Latham, H. P. (Scarboro' & Whitby)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Butler, R. A.
Llewellin, Major J. J.



Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Margesson, Captain H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Captain Sir George Bowyer and


Greene, W. P. Crawford
Muirhead, A. J.
Sir George Penny.


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)





NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Glassey, A. E.
McEntee, V. L.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Gossling, A. G.
Manning, E. L.


Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Marshall, Fred


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.
Hall, Capt. W. G. (Portsmouth, C.)
Mathers, George


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')
Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)
Matters, L. W.


Ammon, Charles George
Hardie, David (Rutherglen)
Messer, Fred


Arnott, John
Hardie, G. D. (Springburn)
Mills, J. E.


Aske, Sir Robert
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Milner, Major J.


Batey, Joseph
Hayday, Arthur
Morley, Ralph


Bennett, William (Battersea, South)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hoffman, P. C.
Owen, H. F. (Hereford)


Caine, Hall-, Derwent
Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Picton-Turbervill, Edith


Daggar, George
Kelly, W. T.
Potts, John S.


Dalton, Hugh
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. Thomas
Quibell, D. J. K.


Davies, D. L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsay, T. B. Wilson


Duncan, Charles
Lawrence, Susan
Ritson, J.


Ede, James Chuter
Lawrie, Hugh Hartley (Stalybridge)
Rosbotham, D. S. T.


Edmunds, J. E.
Leach, W.
Rowson, Guy


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Lees, J.
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)


Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Sanders, W. S.


Egan, W. H.
Lloyd, C. Ellis
Sherwood, G. H.


Gill, T. H.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Shillaker, J. F.


Gillett, George M.
McElwee, A.
Sitch, Charles H.

effort if they wished to do so. If there is a possibility of bringing in the god in the machine from Whitehall it will absolutely prevent others from using their own efforts to supply their own needs.

If only Members could put themselves out of the political arena and envisage this need for houses in the outside districts they would support this new Clause which would provide an opportunity, where the possibility exists, for private employers and co-operative societies, working together, to provide the buildings. It is proposed in Clause 2 to relieve the local authorities of the whole trouble, and there will, naturally, be a tendency of the local authorities to call in the Minister and to say "It would be a great deal of trouble to do it ourselves." This proposed reservation would be useful and harmless and would promote that self help which I am afraid is liable to be so much undermined by a great deal of the social legislation of our days.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 25; Noes, 89.

Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Thurtle, Ernest
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Viant, S. P.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attarcliffe)


Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Wallace, H. W.



Smith, Tom (Pontefract)
Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Mr. Charleton and Mr. Paling.


Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Williams, David (Swansea, East)

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before Two o'Clock.